Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Motorist drives into cyclist moments after shouting abuse for not using cycle lane

UPDATED: Thames Valley Police insist driver would have been prosecuted, but "due to staff absences", two-week deadline was missed...

*UPDATE 12/03/2022* The road.cc reader who sent us this video complained to Thames Valley Police...

"I have just got off the phone to someone who explained that 'due to staff absences' my submission via their website was missed and the footage not viewed in time to send out a notice of intended prosecution (served within 2 weeks)," they told us.

"Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for, and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter. Given Covid I can understand that, I suppose.

"Next time something of that nature happens (because it will sooner or later) I think I might take my video to a police station rather than submit online."

Just days after a road.cc reader sent us some shocking footage of an incident involving a West Midlands driver repeatedly trying to ram them off their bike, we have been sent another concerning video.

This time the video comes from Berkshire, where a Land Rover driver, angered by an earlier exchange about the rider not using a cycle path, drove into the cyclist, pushing them towards the kerb.

Shockingly, the road.cc reader involved reported the incident to Thames Valley Police, who decided, after three months of waiting, to send the driver a close pass warning letter.

"It has taken Thames Valley Police the best part of three months to send a warning letter for a 'close pass' when the car [driver] clearly purposely hits me," the reader told us.

"The incident starts with a close pass as the driver shouted at me out of his window about not using the rubbish cycle path. It contains some rude words, sorry.

"The driver of the car behind stopped to see if I was okay and the passenger had also videoed it so I gave the police their details too. Obviously any sort of investigation or desire to make roads safer is not important to them.

"I'd love to know what the warning letter said... 'if it wouldn't be too much trouble could you consider not ramming cyclists with your car please?' or something like that!"

> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling

On Friday, we shared footage of a shocking road rage attack on a cyclist in Hagley, West Midlands, after they threw an arm up in frustration at a close pass.

The motorist chased after the rider, matching their speed before a series of attempts to ram the cyclist from their bike.

> Shocking footage of road rage driver repeatedly trying to ram cyclist off bike

West Mercia Police twice downgraded the report from assault to dangerous driving, finally settling on driving without due care. The driver admitted the offence and walked away with a £100 fine and three penalty points.

When we contacted West Mercia Police with the footage and outcome, the force first suggested it had not been under their jurisdiction, before later saying they had nothing new to add and the cyclist would have to contact their police point of contact directly.

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

103 comments

Avatar
Hirsute | 2 years ago
2 likes

Twitter following the update to the story.

Staff shortage

Reply:

TRANS: Following a complaint from the reader who sent us this shocking video, Thames Valley Police insisted the driver would have been prosecuted, but "as we DGAF" the two-week deadline was missed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/roadcc/status/1502688912124297219

Avatar
open_roads | 2 years ago
5 likes

It's not a driving offence - it's an assault with a weapon and should be prosecuted as such.

Avatar
Nigel_2003 | 2 years ago
4 likes

I wonder if the Police forces involved would take the same lenient view if the cyclist involved in the incidents had been Boris Johnson...?

If the drivers had attacked the cyclists with a 4 pound lump hammer they'd have had no trouble identifying it as assault with a deadly weapon but apparently two tons of metal in the form of a car wielded with intent to injure doesn't qualify...

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
11 likes

I wonder if there is a business opportunity for some scammy lawyers - ones in this case I would support.

Rather than using the police, you submit your footage of non-injury incidents to a claims firm who generate a £1000 claim for distress and nuisance and submit it to the driver. The official nature then puts the driver into a world of pain with threats of court, or they just pay up or they have to make a claim.

I'd be fairly sure that it would work even if there might be little payment back to the rider.

Saves the police being involved and creates a disincentive as word gets around.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
4 likes

You make an excellent point. I am coming to understand that the Highway Code is there to settle civil disputes when accidents occur and damage is done, apart from the "must" clauses. Disregardng it while driving is not a crime it seems. We seem to be in the realms of "No harm, no foul" as Jack Reacher would put it. The problem facing the cyclist then is that if they capitulate (allow themselves to be bullied) no action is taken, if they don't, while the driver may be open to civil action and financial penalty, they potentially suffer serious injury or worse.

Turning these incidents into a civil matter certainly has merit in these circumstances. We all know that these events can be traumatic and in our snowflake society claims may be successful. It may even be possible to claim that by putting a person off cycling you are endangering them (and others) due to the effects of motoring on climate change. May be worth pursuing by better brains than mine.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
6 likes

I've written to a well known solicitors who specialise in scammy parking claims, (I hope it is not too much trouble for them  3 )

I've pointed out that the cynical business model is that most cyclists wouldn't want a windfall, they just want to know that the motorist has suffered for their poor driving choices - so there ought to be lots of money making for them while even bring about social justice,and that I expect the police and politicians would be quite supportive of a civil process over a criminal one.

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
2 likes

Good luck.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
5 likes

It occurred to me that the very use of cameras is evidence of the level of anxiety about motorists.

Avatar
flybywire | 2 years ago
1 like

There used to be a police station in thatcham until not that long ago, not far from those incidents it's now residential properties. 
Also not far from the police station was a great cycle shop, now a dominoes pizza.

 

Avatar
anagallis_arvensis | 2 years ago
7 likes

As an update, I put in a complaint to TVP and have just got off the phone to someone who explained that "due to staff absences' my submission via there website was missed and the footage not viewed in time to send out a notice of intended prosecution (served within 2 weeks). Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter. Given covid I can understand that I suppose. Next time something of that nature happens (because it will sooner or later) I think I might take my video to a police station rather than submit online.

Avatar
brooksby replied to anagallis_arvensis | 2 years ago
6 likes

You do realise that that excuse is utter Horlicks?

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to anagallis_arvensis | 2 years ago
6 likes

anagallis_arvensis wrote:

Given covid I can understand that I suppose.

You are more understanding than I would be!

That excuse might wash if it was a typical close pass that could reasonably be considered merely careless driving. But deliberately driving into someone is (IMHO) at the minimum dangerous driving (which ought to be prioritised regardless of any staffing issues) or assault (which also ought to be a priority and moreover is not subject to the same two-week limitation that applies to motoring offences). 

Avatar
Richard D replied to OnYerBike | 2 years ago
5 likes

OnYerBike wrote:

That excuse might wash if it was a typical close pass that could reasonably be considered merely careless driving. But deliberately driving into someone is (IMHO) at the minimum dangerous driving (which ought to be prioritised regardless of any staffing issues) or assault (which also ought to be a priority and moreover is not subject to the same two-week limitation that applies to motoring offences). 

This.  A hundred time this.

Cpmplain to the PCC?

Avatar
wtjs replied to anagallis_arvensis | 2 years ago
2 likes

 Had this error not occurred I was assured it was something they would have prosecuted for and the driver was spoken to by a police officer about his actions in addition to the warning letter

brooksby is right- the police are just lying. Lancashire Constabulary has tried this many times to excuse offences like HGVs crashing through red lights seconds after they turned red, or vehicles on the public road having been untaxed for almost 3 years (this is a 'hot one' just come through today- I have issued an ultimatum which they will probably ignore, so a proper complaint will ensue) etc. Lancashire Constabulary was last summer and autumn running a longstanding dodge where they didn't even look at online submissions to allocate an incident reference number (this a a proxy measure for the time they 'looked at' the case) until after the 14 days deadline had expired. Police lying is routine for almost everything now, from lying about whether you have raped and murdered someone to deliberate dodges to obviate working and allow more time to covering up.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to anagallis_arvensis | 2 years ago
9 likes

They still have the option of viewing this as an assault, and then there is no 14 day limitation because it doesn't fall user driving offences.

However, the reality is that the stress of persuing it further outweighs the feel good factor of getting a result.

Avatar
lesterama replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
6 likes

I would want to pursue it as assault

Avatar
Ride On replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
2 likes

Also if an accident ie collision occurs there is no 14 day requirement either. Worth knowing.

Avatar
Bucks Cycle Cammer replied to Ride On | 2 years ago
2 likes

Ride On wrote:

Also if an accident ie collision occurs there is no 14 day requirement either. Worth knowing.

Not quite. The 14 day requirement (Road Traffic Offenders Act s1) applies to certain offences (listed in RTOA sched 1), not to types of incident. So it applies to Careless/Dangerous driving/cycling irrespective of collision.

It does not apply to the 'causing serious injury / death by...' so you're looking at more than a slight knock (and the police charging it as such) before the 14 day limit disappears - unless they can get them on an alternative offence (assault, other motoring offence) which isn't subject to RTOA s1.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to anagallis_arvensis | 2 years ago
2 likes

All "lack of resources" type excuses are double-speak for "it was too low down our priorities to merit the allocation of resource". Resources are always limited.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
2 likes

TBF, having a daughter in the police, you'd be appalled at how under-resourced the police are now. Some of their cars were so old, she refused to drive them because they didn't seem safe(!), her force had a single breathalyser unit between all the patrol cars, so any drunk driver required calling the lucky team for the night. Our neighbourhood police team was 4 people 10 years ago - so consider shifts, that's little more than 1 person full time for about 30,000 people, but then by the time all the admin, time off for sickness, training, and so on, it ends up being nearer 0.5 people per day.

Then there are the IT systems... my daughter was compelled to use a system to write down evidence that simply would lose interview statements when save was pressed. The vendors knew it happened 10% of the time - aside from with my daughter it was 100% - and many of the interviews were reluctant witnesses. They then replaced the system with a new one which they couldn't get fixed until the Met came sniffing around wanting to know if it was any good,so they were effectively using a live beta.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
0 likes

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
1 like

nosferatu1001 wrote:

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

I'd totally agree with you but the police appear to be in line with the courts - who as we've read are extremely disinclined to attribute awareness to motorists just because they're driving and that would appear to be both sensible and the law. Even where the motorist managed not to crash for a long time before and after apparently we accept that they can be "not driving" or aware of their surroundings for a flexible period of time - without censure. While I can't pronounce on the legal soundness of this unfortunately it probably accords with reality and most people's realistic appraisal of their own driving...

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
0 likes

nosferatu1001 wrote:

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

Assuming by this you are referring to the offence of "failure to stop or report an accident", unfortunately the definition of an "accident" given for that offence requires there to be injury to a person or damage to property, which does not appear to have been the case this time.

I also don't think there is a legal excuse of being reasonably unaware - although if that were the case it might affect the public interest test for prosecution. 

Avatar
Bucks Cycle Cammer replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
0 likes

nosferatu1001 wrote:

An accident - which this is - is not subject to the 14 days limit unless the driver would reasonably be unaware of it. Given that's impossible in this case, the police are wrong. 

You may be correct, but do you have a citation? An accident is, in itself, not an offence; 14 days doesn't apply to failure to stop/report, so they could still charge that.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to Bucks Cycle Cammer | 2 years ago
2 likes

If an offence has been committed, then no NIP is required where there has been an accident  - schedule one says when an nip is required, and an accident is not one of those to which it applies. 
 

https://www.hickmanandrose.co.uk/what-is-an-accident-avoiding-the-servic...
 

an accident absolutely occurred here. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
4 likes

No, nothing about it was accidental.

Avatar
newtonuk replied to nosferatu1001 | 2 years ago
1 like

A collision, that was no accident.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
1 like

Sriracha wrote:

All "lack of resources" type excuses are double-speak for "it was too low down our priorities to merit the allocation of resource". Resources are always limited.

Exactly this.  Although I note IanMSpencer's reports from the front line - and I can believe it - it's always a choice, somewhere.  Of course the people higher up (senior police / politicians) are those who have more control on where the the searchlight is pointed. And whether by "a nod and a wink", by making it clear that your career isn't going further if you do x rather than y or simply by cutting off funds for something that's how it gets shifted.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
7 likes

I think it would be a terrible shame if contact with the kerb caused by this driver caused excessive scuffing to the OP's Aero Carbon lovelies / Shoes / Pedals and he needed new sets from the drivers insurance......

https://www.mib.org.uk/check-insurance-details/check-a-vehicle-not-at-th...

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
3 likes

They could always put in a claim for distress and mental anguish, make it a value that the driver would not be willing to simply pay you off. Might not get anywhere much but it would either force the driver to deal with a solicitor or pass it on to his insurers which would then mean he would lose his NCD. Then when he tries to switch insurers he'd have to declare it.

Pages

Latest Comments