Thursday, 25 April 2013

KG51 FYH Driver Reported to the Police.

This incident is an ongoing issue with the Police.




The sheer uselessness of the police never ceases to amaze. First they couldn't find an incident I reported just 3 days ago, because they'd "just yesterday changed the process by which they organise incidents" and couldn't find anything on their system.

Second the "process and collisions department", staffed by useless civilian pond-life have made it absolutely clear that "dangerous/careless driving" requires one to be actually hit before they will take action (but only when the complainant is a cyclist...) and that high-definition video doesn't constitute "evidence". I asked specifically that this incident not be referred to them, because I have absolutely no faith in their ability or desire to secure prosecutions in incidents which don't result in a collision.

The call handler simply ignored my requests.

And they wonder why people have no faith in them any more.

Update. Two traffic cops came round to discuss this. They were clear. If THEY had seen this incident, it would be clearly a case of careless driving and there would be a prosecution. Had the cyclist been a police officer, there would have been a prosecution. However current policies mean that helmet camera evidence isn't "evidence" according to Hertfordshire police's process and collisions department, nor can members of the public generate evidence. Which is ridiculous.

Both officers thought this was an appalling piece of driving, but like the white van thug who beat up a cyclist, their hands are tied by process. Thanks to the Government, now there's someone who can sort this out: the local Police and Crime Commissioner. I will also be writing to my MP and the Chief Constable.

Ultimately Roadsafe or something like it needs to be rolled out nationally. There needs to be a formal way of reporting unsafe driving. This will benefit everyone. Because the kind of ignorant turd who drives that fast and close to a cyclist is almost certainly the kind of ignorant turd who drives six-inches from your bumper on the motorway or thinks speeding in build-up areas is acceptable. He needs a stern word from dibble BEFORE he kills someone.



26 comments:

Anonymous said...

I experience similar incidents every day I commute to work on my bike. Which is most days (+90% of working days this year). Some get even closer. Wankers. Thankfully most are considerate drivers.

Anonymous said...

The cops aren't about protecting you. Surely you get that? Prole on prole crime is largely ignored except for super serious stuff that might be on television.

Spilling Ink said...

Your legs are very pink. There. I said it. Out loud.

Oh yeah, and apparently where you are is way better than where I am. Here about every second car tries to run you down. You never quite get used to it.

Anonymous said...

What podgy, hairless legs!

Fittingly, as you are a wimp. That car wasn't even close, more's the pity.

Why don't you just chill out instead of trying to create drama?

Jackart said...

Ah. The anonymous keyboard warrior. Come and say that to my face.

Jackart said...

Spilling ink. My legs are Pink because I am white, of Scottish heritage, It's been a long winter and I'm wearing shorts on a cool day. They start blue.

Spilling Ink said...

I live in Oz and that's exactly what my legs look like when I start wearing shorts after a "long, cold winter" here. Being of Swedish heritage I also suffer from pink-leg. I never quite manage the blue here though.

Umbongo said...

Expensive I know but what about a private prosecution? Or maybe one mounted by the CTC (a la RSPCA)?

Anonymous said...

http://order-order.com/2013/04/26/ukip-candidate-tells-abusive-cyclists-on-your-bike/

Get a life. They all missed by the same distance they missed the oncoming cars. You didn't even wobble.

And you are rather anonymous, too.

Anonymous said...

There is such a thing as looking for trouble, ditto wasting police time. Judging from this footage you set off with the intention of catching someone who drove close to you. This is attention seeking rubbish and the over stretched police force have more important things to do than follow up baseless complaints from egotistical, aggressive bike riders. You have an axe to grind. Go do it somewhere else.

You fat git

Anonymous said...

wow, I just looked at your uploaded videos on youtube, you are a really angry aggressive cyclist.

Luke said...

Does a gentleman wear brown shoes in combination with cycling shorts?

On a vaguely more serious note, is there (or should there be) some way of reporting such drivers to the Association of British Insurers? Or the Motor Insurers Bureau?
I reckon the increased premium would be more than any fine the courts ever give to motorists who do kill someone.

Anonymous said...

I wrote the bit above, i.e. "wow, I just looked at your uploaded videos on youtube, you are a really angry aggressive cyclist."

Just wanted to say that despite that I do very much enjoy your blog, mainly because you make a lot of sense (apart from the biking, and I respect your opinion on that).

I just wanted to add this because what I said was pretty negative, and that is certainly not how I feel about you or this blog. I am grateful that you put your musings on the web for me to ponder. You often say things on the economy and politics that encapsulate perfectly what I would say, had I the ability.

thanks.

Anonymous said...

I expect that you also showed the police the video you posted on youtube a few weeks ago, showing you flagrantly disregarding the highway code because you in your wisdom, decided what was safe and what was not. No? Why ever not?

Jackart said...

Ah. An anonymous window-licker who can't tell the difference between rolling through a red-light, discombobulating no-one and a 60mph overtake with inches to spare in the face of oncoming traffic. One is legal in most juristictions, the other is potentially lethal.

For those who think this is "wasting police time", do you really think this was an acceptable piece of driving?

Or are you just massively prejudiced against people based on the way they travel? In which case you're probably thick.

Jackart said...

As for "podgy, hairless legs". I've fair skin and fine hair. I'm an oatmeal barbarian, a porridge wog, a pasty scion of the far north. There's nothing I can do about my appearance, you racist bastards.

Anonymous said...

"For those who think this is "wasting police time", do you really think this was an acceptable piece of driving?"

I think it's about as bad as some of your own cycling, overtaking on the middle lane with traffic moving in both directions.

Going to report yourself?

Jackart said...

No, because "overtaking on the middle lane with traffic moving in both directions" ISN'T ILLEGAL. Nor is it contrary to the highway code, unlike passing a cyclist close at 60mph.

I can now conclude you're a dribbling moron, who knows nothing of what he speaks.

Anonymous said...

"unlike passing a cyclist close at 60mph."

This dribbling moron would like to know where it is stated this is illegal?

Jackart said...

Anon, you're a hateful, ignorant fuckwit.

Road Traffic act, 1988, Section 3 - dangerous and careless driving. Here

This is defined by the CPS which includes "failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists..." as one of the examples given for a Dangerous (in practice always careless...) driving charge here.

If you think this Mitsubushi was driven acceptably, as many stupid ignorant fuckwits do, then I really, really hope you kill yourself by driving into a tree before you kill a worthwhile member of humanity.

Longrider said...

However current policies mean that helmet camera evidence isn't "evidence" according to Hertfordshire police's process and collisions department, nor can members of the public generate evidence. Which is ridiculous.

Actually, it isn't ridiculous. if evidence is to be used in a prosecution, it has to be robust and rightly so. An amateur video is uncorroborated and unverified and as such will be unusable in court. Despite your protagonist getting away with piss poor (dangerous) driving, this is a good thing, not a bad one. If I am to face charges, I would expect some pretty robust and fully verified and corroborated evidence to be produced. Otherwise, I expect the prosecution to fail. The system is rightly biased in favour of the defendant. To reverse this would be the start of a very dangerous path.

That said, I don't see why plod can't go and have a word - there is enough evidence for that.

Luke said...

Longrider,

I'm not sure I follow you. If someone comes and smacks me in the face, I can go to the police and say "he smacked me in the face." (Or at least that has always been my understanding.) The police, CPS, and ultimately a jury/beak decide if they believe me.

On your reasoning, if I say "he smacked me in the face and I have it on tape," then I have no case?

And helmet cam evidence is plainly evidence. We can argue intelligently about how strong evidence it is, but it is better than you have in many criminal cases. Remember, "witnesses in criminal prosecutions are rarely librarians or gentlemen of the clergy."

And it is not uncorroborated - you have the evidence of the guy wearing the helmet. That is one film, one oral testimony, each corroborating the other.

See the "Cycling Silk" blog. He took a case based on helmet cam evidence. Being a QC, I suspect he has a reasonable idea what constitutes evidence (and he won).

Longrider said...

Corroboration would be another testimony - independent of the original complainant - or, better still, a police officer. Amateur video may be edited, for example and there is no chain of custody to ensure that it has not been tampered with, so it is weak evidence on its own.

Yes, if you went in and complained that someone smacked you in the face without some firm evidence to back up your complaint, it would rightly fail.

Longrider said...

Being a QC, I suspect he has a reasonable idea what constitutes evidence (and he won).

Quite right - as with a police officer, his evidence will carry more weight precisely because he understands the evidence.

I would expect plod to investigate Jackart's complaint but I wouldn't expect to go beyond a warning.

Luke said...

"Yes, if you went in and complained that someone smacked you in the face without some firm evidence to back up your complaint, it would rightly fail."

Have you ever been to a court?

Thank god you're a driving instructor and not a judge. Since when did witness testimony count for nothing? You do realise that on your bizarre logic every rape prosecution would fail? Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall could fuck every child in the country (including your daughters if you have any) as long as there wasn't an independent witness? And every fat fuck in a car could mow down as many pedestrians as they wanted?

Luke said...

"Quite right - as with a police officer, his evidence will carry more weight precisely because he understands the evidence."

So if your daughter is assaulted, no one should take any notice of her if she is not a QC or a police officer?

There was an error in this gadget