- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Hertfordshire Police apologise to cyclist and say brake-checking motorist should have been interviewed
Hertfordshire Police have apologised to a cyclist involved in a collision caused by a brake-checking motorist for ‘prematurely finalising the case’. The force said the motorist should have been questioned and that case officers had therefore been ‘given advice’ regarding collision investigation. However, the case cannot now be reopened unless new evidence comes to light.
On January 12, road.cc reader John was involved in an incident with the driver of a Ford Fusion on Melbourn Road, Royston, which we reported on here.
The video appears to show the driver clipping John while overtaking – knocking his car’s wing mirror back in the process – before sharply hitting the brakes in the middle of an empty roundabout. That second manoeuvre resulted in John riding into the back of the vehicle.
After viewing the footage, Hertfordshire Constabulary wrote to inform John, “the weight of evidence to prove that any offences have been committed is not sufficient for a prosecution to take place.”
That came following a whole saga attempting to report the incident in the first place, as detailed in our original article.
Dissatisfied with the decision, John made an official complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Explaining how officers decided to close the case, complaints investigator Kevin Bennett told John that the motorist had returned a notice confirming that he was driver of the car at the time and providing his account of what happened, “which does differ from yours.”
However, Bennett concludes that “there appear to be offences that should have been investigated further by way of interviewing the driver” – although he adds that a request for an interview would have been on a voluntary basis with no guarantee the driver would have participated.
Bennett continues: “All I 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.”
Elsewhere in his response, Bennett seems to question some of John’s riding, including his decision to overtake a slower moving cyclist when the motorist was behind him.
“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.”
Bennett also makes a reference to John looking down to clip back into his pedals after losing balance following the initial contact.
“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.”
John said he was “extremely disheartened” with several of Bennett’s conclusions.
“In parts it flat out contradicts the video,” he said. “For example the driver claims that he sounded his horn as he passed and that I kicked his wing mirror. The video clearly shows (you can see the shadow) that my response to the horn was to give a clear and unambiguous arm signal that I intended to complete my overtake of the slower cyclist.
“I was already overtaking when the horn was sounded, my exit from the roundabout was already taking into account that overtake and I’m moving about twice the speed of the other cyclist.
“Despite the clear and unambiguous video evidence, it appears that the driver’s account is given equal credence to what actually happened.”
Reflecting on the collision on the roundabout, John added: “The car was well ahead and pulling away when I glanced down as I was having trouble re-engaging my cleat and was caught out by the brake check. Frankly it was totally unexpected.
“I’ll know different in future, but in over 35 years of driving, motorcycling and cycling as an adult I HAVE NEVER had that manoeuvre performed on me before. It is incredibly dangerous and is considered by most police forces in the UK and abroad as a serious moving traffic offence.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 17 min 4 sec ago
I don't think he wants to talk about it...
- Rendel Harris 46 min 33 sec ago
Ach, dinnae fret...
- Matt Page 54 min 29 sec ago
The Prevelo Alpha Three on the main feature image is 20".
- eburtthebike 1 hour 6 min ago
£100 bonus.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 14 min ago
To be fair if this is our usual revenant they've got form in rewriting history...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 15 min ago
"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ... we have to because some numpty destroyed the roll of names"....
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 20 min ago
Looks like some Barton Hill residents don't want the Liverpool Neighbourhood or at least not Marsh Lane to be a no-through-road:...
- David9694 4 hours 8 min ago
"After a two-hour long meeting, the panel voted 9-2 to resolve that the majority of the panel supported the introduction of the charges but was ...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 46 min ago
It's just easier to "negotiate" when both parties are much more similar in vulnerability, manoeuvrability, speed, width, etc. than those in motor...
Add new comment
74 comments
Does.
To clarify, and I would point you to the further explanation in the comments section of the original story linked in the first paragraph. The door mirror struck my forearm and then the bar end. The noise is clear on the video as it occured near to the camera and microphone. Whilst the bike remained stable, I can tell you that my upper body went one way and my right foot came out of the pedal and quite violently on the upstroke at which point the door of the car brushed against my lower leg. Bear in mind the winter sun is quite low and exagerates the shadows. Also note my leg goes up, not particulary out. I'm pretty sure I would have difficulty kicking a door mirror on a moving car, especially backwards. I'm a 50+ bloke with a dodgy back.
Sorry but it's still a no from me.
The shadows don't lie. Also, if the mirror hit your forearm and then the bar end then there'd be 2 distinct bangs. You'd have gone all over the place too, the camera would have wobbled as the mirror hit your arm and definitely as it hit the bar end. The sound doesn't even match where you say the car struck you or your bike. To bend a mirror in takes some force, not a massive amount granted but enough that it would show by the camera view going off to the left. Take it to a film expert and they'd probably agree.
the driver brake checked you because you bumped his car. Either your foot or your knee comes out to meet that car.
What it does show, without a shadow of a doubt is that the driver reacted in a dangerous manner that should have had him in front of a judge.
You are the driver of the Ford Focus, and I claim my £5!
Haha! I apologise for not fitting in to the "drivers fault every time" rhetoric that seems to dominate this site.
look on a bigger screen, frame by frame. Listen to when the sound happens and see where the shadow of the mirror is in relation to where the rider says it struck him.
Either way, Its inconclusive at best.
So why do you dispute the evidence of the only eye witness? As has been pointed out many times, to actually kick the mirror is virtually impossible, and absolutely impossible if you want stay on the bike. The evidence you have is frankly risible. Just man up and admit you are wrong.
The only eye witness? There are 2 witnesses surely? One on the bike and one in the car.
Point how "impossible" it is all you want. It's not impossible or improbable.
Point out to me in the video where the mirror strikes his arm and then his bar end? Come on. Point to me where there would be 2 noises but only 1 is heard? The car veers off to the right once the mirror is struck. Yes, it's too close but the cyclist in this instance struck out. Mirror comes nowhere near his arm, his arms shadow is clearly visible throughout. The cyclist doesn't veer off his line one bit.
How tall is munge? What type of bike is he riding? Have you recreated these scientific studies moving at the same speed?
let me have a copy of the original where I can go over it frame by frame and if I'm in the wrong I'll admit it but I'm not the only one to point out the cyclist looks to have struck out.
You seem to be putting a lot of faith in shadows and your interpretation.
You obviously haven't submitted footage before.
I suspect he also holds that the shadows prove the moon landings to be fake.....
I don't know who this Muppet is, but he may be the driver or a friend of the driver, or maybe just bored with the lock down, and baiting some active folk whilst sitting in his kex in his grandma's spare room.
Either way, I doubt very much he sees much sunlight, let alone knows how to ride a bike.
I'm a cyclist CB I can assure you. I have no affiliation with the driver or anyone else on this site.
I'm also a realist. Which is more than can be said for most in this site.
I might believe you on the cyclist bit.
But realist? Not so much....
Listen, this ninja style feat of dexterity yeah? How the frig does munge get on his bike? Is it a step-through or is he lowered and lifted off it King Farqaad style? It's just that unless it isn't 1 of the 2 ways I've mentioned then his leg must come up to mirror level for him to get on his bike.
Does that seem plausible?
On a stationary bike leant over, with one leg on the ground, but without the leg outstretched.
Hoping you will also be answering these questions to demonstrate how you are certain of what happened from the shadows.
How tall is munge? What type of bike is he riding? Have you recreated these scientific studies moving at the same speed?
I did think of that method after saying what I said so yes, there's also that too.
Perhaps it would be simpler if you just uploaded a clip of you cycling along with your leg stretched out at saddle height. Or what ever height you determined from the shadows, vehicle, time of day, angle of the sun, bike, leg length and flexibility of the rider.
Dude, please, please, please, upload a video of you getting on your bike!
Y'know, I'm beginning to like you Sparrow.
How long are your legs sparrow? If it's less than 1.5m then the motorist is well within the accepted recommended distance for carrying out a safe pass.
I don't see Munge suddenly veering to the right, in the video. Fairly conclusive?
So if any motorist comes within 1.5m of us now we should just lash out? It's going to be hard cycling along with our left legs pedalling while we flail our right leg out in case a motorist comes near.
Seriously matey, I can assure you, I am no Jackie Chan with super ninja moves, the reactions of a striking cobra and an unatural ability to drop kick a door mirror from a moving bicycle without inducing the slightest wobble.
Whilst it is interesting to have an opposite point of view from someone who has only seen the video and read my side of events, you are now flat out calling me a liar, so I'd appreciate you giving it a rest.
I've also read the drivers side of events.
But mungey old bean, I'm glad you're ok out of all this. That's the main thing isn't it?
C'est la vie as Del would say.
"I've also read the drivers side of events."
That's an interesting claim for you to make. Pray tell, where exactly did you aquire a copy of the driver's statement and please feel free to share the transcript with the rest of us. I'd be particularly interested as I have not seen it myself.
Funny that you claim inconclusive at best, after making a completely baseless assertion that MC deliberately "assaulted" a motor vehicle that was approaching from behind. Your evidence? a shadow on an overcast day, in spite of the fact that MC's shadow is merged with that of the motor vehicle and cannot be resolved.
Honestly, I'm laughing at myself - earlier I thought myself to be hasty and unfair on branding you a muppet!
My first conclusion that you are commenting for reaction now looks more solid than ever. Gotta hand it to you, you have kicked the hornet's nest. Well done, couldn't have done it better myself!
Now, why don't you put the tech down, and go and make your gran a cuppa....
Baseless assertion? We have the motorists account of what happened don't we?
You do see his shawdow more like kicking the door of the car not mirror. And as Mungecrundle wrote the mirror struck his forearm and bar end not his leg
When I read stories like this about someone using a car as a weapon it gives me the distinct impression that the police won't protect me from violence when I'm out riding.
You can tell from the duration of the horn blast that it wasn't used to alert the cyclist to the presence of the car but as some kind of rebuke. That in itself is an offence.
Hitting someone with a car twice should have some penalty.
"the motorist had returned a notice confirming that he was driver of the car at the time and providing his account of what happened, “which does differ from yours.” "
And differs from the video
I think John you need to join GB gymnastic team as you apparently can kick a wing mirror (backwards !) whilst pedalling at speed and whilst being overtaken - awesome timing and flexibility.
Even Danny MacAskill might have trouble with that one.
The police need to do one of those Aliston-type attempts at a reconstruction. I want to see some cops try and recreate this Jackie-Chan-level stunt. One driving the car at speed, the other on the bike, performing a spectacular back-kick of the mirror. I could imagine it might take quite a few attempts...maybe a few injuries along the way.
No, it's easy; sparrowlegs could do it first time every time, and even if he couldn't he'd claim the shadows proved he did it.
Institutionally anti cyclist
Pages