Hertfordshire Police apologise to cyclist and say brake-checking motorist should have been interviewed

A general observation - we whinge and moan about these sorts of things on cycling forums (yeah, I know, should be forii technically) when what we should do is use them to organise political action in the form of writing to Chief Constables and our MPs demanding action.  In the case of the police, better guidelines and training rather than vilification of the officers concerned. Presumably IPCC will cover that this time round.  In the case of the MPs, better laws and perhaps Priti Patel could take time out from shouting at her staff and take a look at guidance for the police on protecting all vulnerable road users.

Two things here need sorting out:

1)  Why is it not possible to re-open a case when it has not been conducted correctly.

2) Treated as a traffic offence when in fact the "brake check" was an attempt to injure the cyclist using a two ton weapon.

In the old days the driver might well have suffered an unfortunate accident of his own next time he went to the pub.

Interesting.

IMO there no way he could have smacked the mirror with his foot. You'd need to be some sort of ninja.

I'd guess  the mirror hit his arm or he hit the mirror.

I've been clipped by a mirror  on a black cab and they fold back  and its not much of an impact so wouldn't necessarily make the cyclist wobble a lot.

It really seems like this story has been taken over by a 'classic' troll.

Can I call on everyone to stop engaging with this individual so they can get back to their duties in Fortnite.

I must be bored as I have just gone out and tried to kick the car mirror from a stationary position on my bike.
I could only achieve this with my left foot on the ground and leaning over. In order to get any force in it, I would have spun off left and ended up on the ground somewhat bruised and battered.

Full text of letter from Kevin Bennett

I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the complaint you made against the Collisions Unit at Stevenage Police Station that the Road Traffic Collision you were involved in was filed as No Further Action.
The complaint has been concluded by means of a Local Complaint. I have communicated with you via email and discussed your complaint.
I have also discussed the actual incident, detailing the failings of the Collisions Unit and the steps taken to prevent a reoccurrence and highlighting where I believe a safer riding approach may have been advisable.

Nature of your complaint
You state that following a road traffic collision on the 12th January 2020, on Melbourn Road, Royston, whilst out on your pedal cycle, you were informed by the Collisions Unit that the case had been filed as no further action due to insufficient evidence.
You state that you are not happy with the failure of Hertfordshire Police to take any action against the driver involved in a road traffic collision and the decision made by the Collisions Unit, as you feel that there has been a lack of investigation to ensure road safety.
Response to your complaint

Firstly, I am sorry that you had cause to complain about how the incident that you were involved in on the 12th January 2020 was dealt with. The Collisions Unit at Stevenage Police Station deals with around 20,000 road traffic collisions every year, the vast majority of which are dealt with to the satisfaction of those involved.
I have obtained a copy of the online collision report, read the comments on the collisions recording system and discussed the incident and your complaint with Superintendent ATTWELL, the Case Manager and the Head of the Collisions Unit. I have also viewed the footage that you have downloaded and reviewed the incident.
Having looked through all the information I have, there appears to be a number of issues that have been highlighted. The first being the actual incident itself, whereby you had been riding your pedal cycle along Melbourn Road, Royston and were initially passed by a Ford Fusion, which you then passed along its inside on the approach to a roundabout.
Then having exited the roundabout you passed a slower moving cyclist; the Ford Fusion would have been directly behind you at this point and sounds his horn. Having moved to a more central position in the road to pass the cyclist (it can be seen in the shadow that you appear to turn and put your arm out) the Ford Fusion then moved to its offside across the central white lines to pass you. However, I note at this point that the nearside door mirror of the Fusion is turned-in, which indicates that it had passed you too close and had made contact with you, although the footage does not show exactly what occurred.
The Fusion then carries on passed you and enters the roundabout, followed by you, where it appears that on the roundabout you have been adjusting your pedals or cleats. The Fusion has then come to an abrupt stop on the roundabout before the exit, at which point you have not braked or swerved and have ridden into the rear of the Fusion causing you to fall off your bike. The driver of the Ford Fusion does not stop at the scene.
Having been involved in this incident and were not injured, you then made an on-line report via the Cambridgeshire Police website, however you state that you then received an email acknowledging the email and enquiring about your welfare, to which you replied stating that you were OK apart from a little stiffness, which you took as being a polite enquiry into your wellbeing. You state that you then received an email back from the Collisions Team saying that they could not deal with the report as there had been an injury and that you would have to report the incident at your local Police Station.
You state that you then went to Royston Police Station to find that it was closed, but was able to speak with an Officer via the outside telephone who advised you that you would have to go to Stevenage Police Station to make the report, but that as you was not injured to re-submit the report via the police website, which you did, but it was rejected again. You state that you then made several phone calls and emails which after a while it was agreed that you had not been injured in the incident and it would be passed onto the correct department to deal with.
You state that having then received a pro-forma witness statement to complete, you subsequently received a letter from the Collisions Unit notifying you that they would not be pursuing the matter, to which you comment that you are “genuinely concerned that Hertfordshire Police do not consider road safety to be of any importance and their failure to act in this case gives me great concern for the safety of myself and indeed the vulnerable road user”; as I said at the start, it is clear that there are a number of issues with your case, and I will go through them and hopefully explain where the issues were and why they occurred.
Firstly, the incident itself from the footage raises a number of questions, in that when the Ford Fusion passed you having exited the roundabout it was clearly close to you, but it is not conclusive as to how the door mirror became folded in. You are stating that the car was so close that the mirror hit you, whereas the driver of the Fusion has stated that as he sounded his horn as he passed you that you kicked the mirror in temper as he sounded his horn, causing damage to his car.
It also raises the point that whilst approaching the slower moving cyclist and being aware that the Ford Fusion was close behind you, that it may have been advisable to have stayed back behind the slower cyclist until the Fusion has gone past you, therefore eliminating that hazard. That’s not to say I believe that you are at fault, it’s just that the evidence is inconclusive to prove one way beyond all reasonable doubt and sometimes it may be prudent to stay back and stay safe.
The incident then moves on to the point where you follow the Fusion which then enters the roundabout and for no apparent reason the Fusion comes to an abrupt stop, at which point you have collided into the rear of the Fusion, which has then driven away from the scene without exchanging details. It is clear from the footage that you were not expecting the Fusion to stop as there is no indication that you have attempted to swerve out of the way or brake and I note from your statement that you had been distracted as you were re-engaging your cleats into your pedals. Again, I am not suggesting that you were at fault, but merely pointing out that had you not been re-engaging your cleats that you may have been able to stop, which would also have been the case had you been travelling at a more appropriate distance behind the Fusion; a point that could be exposed by the defence if the matter was heard in court.
However, none of this distracts from the fact that the driver of the Ford Fusion failed to stop at the scene of the collision and did not exchange any details.
Having received your statement and subsequent letter to the Collisions Unit, it was noted by the Case Officer that you had considered the incident not to have been a road traffic collision, but you made reference to it being an “assault” and that the “weapon used in the assault was a motor vehicle”. You have also stated that the “car driver clearly aware of my presence & deliberately caused this incident”. Therefore, having read your comments the Case Officer quite rightly took the decision that this should not be recorded as a road traffic collision, but as an assault, which is the first point where the system has let you down, because from there on the report was sent for crime recording, but was returned saying that it was not a crime but a collision. These discussions went on to a point whereby the Collisions Manager decided that the Collisions Unit would take ownership of the case.
A notice under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act was then sent out to the registered keeper of the Ford Fusion, which is a legal requirement for the keeper to either confirm that they were the driver at the time of the incident / collision, or to nominate who the driver was. This notice was returned to the Collisions Unit by the registered keeper confirming that he was driver of the car at the time and provided an explanation giving his account of what happened, which does differ from yours.
However, having assessed all the information, the case Officer decided that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution and that the best course of action was to file the case as no further police action, to exchange details and allow the relevant insurance companies to deal with any compensation. This is where I believe that the system has failed again, in that there appears to be offences that should have been investigated further by way of interviewing the driver of the Fusion, although I must point out that a request of an interview with the driver would have been on a voluntary basis with no guarantee that he would have participated or that had any evidence been gained if he had have.
Therefore, having made his decision to file the case as no further action, letters were sent out to both you and the driver of the Ford Fusion informing you of the result and it is the case that once these letters have been sent out the case cannot be re-opened unless new and previously unknown evidence comes to light, which is where the case is now.

Conclusion

The Camera, Tickets & Collisions Unit deals with over 20,000 road traffic collisions every year and takes all collisions seriously, in particular those where there has been an injury or a driver has failed to stop at the scene and will always pursue a prosecution whenever there is the evidence to do so, is in the public interest and is proportionate.

However, road traffic collisions can be very subjective, in that you may get differing views from people as to who was responsible. In your case, whilst I believe that as a cyclist who is a vulnerable road user, that there are occasions that require a more defensive way of riding so as to minimise risks, it is clear that the driver of the Ford Fusion has driven in an inconsiderate manner and has failed to stop at the scene.
From the footage that you supplied, although it does not show conclusively what happened in the initial stages, what it does show is that the Ford Fusion passed you too closely, to a point where the nearside door mirror has been knocked in, and in the second stage it clearly shows the Fusion stopping abruptly prior to the exit to the roundabout.
The driver has given an explanation for both points of contact, albeit his accounts differs from yours and did require further questioning.
In my opinion this case was finalised prematurely and that the driver of the Ford Fusion should have been invited in for an interview, although as mentioned previously, this would have been voluntary with no compulsion on the drivers’ behalf to cooperate, however this should have been explored.
Therefore, all am able to do is apologise on behalf of the Collisions Unit that they have not given you the level of service that you would have expected and I can assure you that all the Case Officers in the Collisions Unit have been given advice regarding collision investigation.
As I have mentioned previously, as both parties have been informed that the case has been filed as no further action, the case is now officially closed and cannot be re-opened, however this does not prevent you taking out a private prosecution in a Civil Court where the burden of proof is set at a lower level as they work on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.
To assist in a Civil case, a copy of the road traffic collision report can be obtained from the Hertfordshire Police website at https://www.herts.police.uk/Apply/Apply-shared/Collision-report-herts quoting the collision reference number 921949.

I can assure you that Hertfordshire Police takes all forms of road safety very seriously and works closely with the Hertfordshire Road Safety Partnership to promote all aspects of road safety, along with an active Roads Policing Unit and strategically placed speed reduction teams and cameras.

In your last email to me you mentioned that you were going to share my comments with the community; all I request is that when you do, you mention that we have taken all your comments on board and have apologised to you and that the Managers in the Collisions unit have done all they can to addressed the issues to ensure this does not reoccur.
I understand that this process has been frustrating for you and I can assure you that it’s disappointing that we have not been able to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion and again please accept my apologies for any additional stress this has caused you.
I hope that you are satisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been resolved and that any future contact you may have with us will be without complications. I apologise that you had cause to complain initially and trust that I have addressed all of your concerns.
You do have the right of appeal of the information above if you feel that you have not received a comprehensive response to your complaint. This can be directed in writing to the Head of Professional Standards, the contact information can be found on your initial acknowledgement letter that was sent to you. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to make your representations.
Yours Sincerely
Kevin Bennett – Complaints Investigator
Stevenage Police Station.
Kevin.bennett2 [at] herts.pnn.police.uk

Ok, so the investigation appears to have been conducted by someone who doesn't understand the law (private prosecutions have the same burden of proof as public) and who thinks stream of consciousness is the preferred form of writing for a decision letter.

The real question here; is who can investigate the investigator? He's a numbskull, and he's forgiving poor performance because he lacks the skills and knowledge to reach a relaible and safe conclusion.

It's about time we had the right to invoke powers to identify and expel cretins from the police. In a clear cut case like this if they are incapable of policing / applying common sense they should be out on their ear and let someone competent have the job.

"Wing mirrors" went out in the 1970's - they are DOOR mirrors now.

“It also raises the point that whilst approaching the slower moving cyclist and being aware that the Ford Fusion was close behind you, that it may have been advisable to have stayed back behind the slower cyclist until the Fusion has gone past you, therefore eliminating that hazard.

Hang on are they saying that might is right or that higher speed trumps lower speed?
John had already postioned himself for an overtake with a line on and coming off the roundabout.
Howabout
" it may have been advisable to have stayed back behind the cyclists until the nearest cyclist has gone past the furthest one, therefore eliminating that hazard. "

Nah, sorry but I've watched the video over and over and it seems to me like he does kick out at the mirror as the car is coming past. A rear wards kick. You can see his leg return to a riding position from being in a higher position and could be the reason he was unclipped at the roundabout.

Where on his body did the car hit him? If you're saying it's to high for him to kick then it couldn't have been his leg so his arm? Have you heard the contact noise? The car is only going slightly faster than the rider. A noise like that I'd expect from a faster moving car and I'd expect it to make the rider wobble considerably. He doesn't even deviate which brings me to think he anticipated the contact because he caused it. 
 

Not only that but it seems overkill for a driver to brake check a rider if he hit him. But if the rider kicked his mirror...?