Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Aggressive driver tries to ram cyclist in shocking footage...but "insufficient evidence" for police action

Despite the driver being caught on camera using his phone, threatening the cyclist before trying to ram him, a road.cc reader was told there was not enough evidence for the police to take action

road.cc was sent this shocking footage by reader Greg over the weekend after it was confirmed that no police action would be taken against the driver.

Greg was cycling in Lewisham, south London, in November when he nearly collided with a driver using his phone behind the wheel of a Peugeot 107.

Challenging the driver on his actions, the cyclist shouted "get off your phone" before telling him to "pay attention to what you're doing".

In return the driver wound the window down to shout some expletives back, threatening to "knock you off your bike and smack your f****** head in", and proceeded to drive at the cyclist, pushing him towards the oncoming traffic.

Stopped at temporary traffic lights a few moments later Greg again challenged the driver, asking: "What was the point of that? You weren't paying attention."

At this point the driver interrupted to once again threaten Greg: "What would you do if I cut your throat? Is it worth it? I'll smash your f****** bike around your head."

Greg explained to us how he reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police, but "it was confirmed that no further action will be taken due to lack of evidence".

"It seems that you can nearly knock someone off their bike by not paying attention on their phones, ram them when their terrible driving is highlighted and then make threats to kill. Sadly we have to share the road with these people and have police who just don't care to follow them up."

The complaint was made as a traffic offence, but initially dealt with as a criminal offence by police, who subsequently judged there was insufficient evidence. Instead, the investigating officer decided it should be reported as a traffic offence.

By this point the online reporting service would not allow a new report more than 10 days after an incident, so Greg asked the officer to consider the footage as a collision — thus bypassing the time restriction.

"They said they would check but returned a call the next day to say the Lewisham traffic team reviewed it and there's not enough evidence to proceed," Greg explained. "It has now been left as the 14-day rule has timed it out."

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

77 comments

Avatar
Flintshire Boy | 2 years ago
5 likes

Ab solute four ken dis grace.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 2 years ago
8 likes

What a goon. Checked his MOT status, it ran out on the 12th. Only seems to do about a thousand miles a year, he was probably googling how to get into second gear.

Avatar
jh2727 replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
5 likes

HoarseMann wrote:

What a goon. Checked his MOT status, it ran out on the 12th. Only seems to do about a thousand miles a year, he was probably googling how to get into second gear.

That's a thousand hours per year behind the wheel, in London.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad | 2 years ago
9 likes

So ... send the footage to the PCC, local MP and Grant Shapps?

Avatar
sensei | 2 years ago
10 likes

Apparently no action was taken because this was outside of the 14 day submission period, but other than using a technicality to not do their job, the MET are happy to allow an absolute nutcase and serious danger to the public continue.

The MET already have lost the trust of many of the public as a result of the long list of high profile failings. So this needs to taken through the complaints procedures and this also needs to be raised with the local MP.

I'm really not sure how any police force can see that footage, particularly with someone readily prepared to use their vehicle as a weapon to defend their illegal phone use and just let them carry on as usual. Appalling failure of policing.

 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to sensei | 2 years ago
6 likes

Was this your footage or you found extra details?

If the footage was submitted the day of the incident or within 24hours, then complain that the Police didn't process it in time. 

Complain that the initial ram actually was a collision and is exempt from the 14 day. 

Complain that the actual threatening behaviour would have been done for something else if not in a car so why does RT Laws of submission apply?

Complain that a car is as deadly a weapon as a knife, so threatening violence whilst in control of a weapon. 

Avatar
sensei replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
1 like

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Was this your footage or you found extra details?

If the footage was submitted the day of the incident or within 24hours, then complain that the Police didn't process it in time. 

Complain that the initial ram actually was a collision and is exempt from the 14 day. 

Complain that the actual threatening behaviour would have been done for something else if not in a car so why does RT Laws of submission apply?

Complain that a car is as deadly a weapon as a knife, so threatening violence whilst in control of a weapon. 

 

Passpixi on Twitter posted an update on the video (15/01) reporting that no action has been taken and various people including ex-policeman Mark Hodson suspected this being the reason for zero action being taken. 

https://twitter.com/markandcharlie/status/1482635295124303873?ref_src=tw..."

I'm very much with you on this that when assault takes place this rule should not apply, so whichever way you look at it the inaction of The Met is indefensible. They are knowingly allowing a nutcase to continue driving and if this guy actually brings harm to anyone else, The Met by their inaction should be held partially responsible.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to sensei | 2 years ago
0 likes

Mark is still a Police Man, unfortunately only on Motorway Police now though so not protecting vulnerable road users anymore. And I expect he is guessing this as even he can't believe the result is no evidence of any faults.

Avatar
sensei replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

Yes I thought he'd stepped down but didn't know he's just changed roles. Didn't want to take his words as gospel as he was only commenting from an outside perspective. It seems to be the only logical explanation as to how The Met can justify zero action.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to sensei | 2 years ago
3 likes

At the moment holding a mobile phone is not "evidence" as Loopholes have decided that driving one handed whilst looking at another device screen and not the road is not an offence, and even though that is the definition of Not Paying Due Care and Attention, the Police have decided not to even go the easier route.

I suspect the order has come down from above not to accept any footage of any event as they need all the man power to investigate these parties at certain places being as it seems the Government had one each day now. 

Avatar
brooksby | 2 years ago
7 likes

"Lack of evidence"?? 

So Greg got a mate to drive illegally, and then acted out a little theatrical entertainment just for the Met...?

OR he actually filmed someone driving illegally and threateningly, but the police had other priorities.

What was it the Beeb said about roads being dangerous...?

Avatar
HLaB | 2 years ago
6 likes

The police might not consider the first offence to be sufficient (the cynic in me says insufficient = cannot be bothered) but there's half a dozen offences after that which I think would be sufficient if it was anything other than a cyclist (including some which might IMHO land the driver in jail)👎

Avatar
GMBasix | 2 years ago
7 likes

Meanwhile, at City Hall...

"So, Mr Khan, Your Worshipmayorness, after the debacle that was the last time we tried to do safety, we thought we'd run the script past you so somebody else gets the blame next time we get a consensus of approval before proceeding. So here's how it goes.  A driver is peacfully driving down the road, when, 'Oh no!' a cyclist gets in his way...

... and then the driver thinks to camera, by way of a slightly echoey voiceover, "I 'ad to run 'im off the road and fretten to cut 'is froat!  And I would've had to live wivvat for the rest of 'is life, if I 'ad to follow froo wivvit... anyhoo..."

So what do you think Mr Khan? Do you think that gets the right balance between us and the wheelrats?"

Avatar
capedcrusader replied to GMBasix | 2 years ago
3 likes

You've made some very pertinent points there. You should be aware of the following though;

1) The Mayor does not oversee the day to day operational affairs of the Met Police.

2) The Mayor does not control the criminal justice system (e.g. courts, etc) in London.

Other than that, spot on.

Avatar
GMBasix replied to capedcrusader | 2 years ago
1 like

However, he does take an interest in the running of TfL and, given that the previous "See their side" campaign raise such ire, it is highly likely he would take more interest in a susequent iteration.  The post is an imaginary script approval meeting, so...

  1. No Met involvement
  2. Not a criminal justice matter

Therefore, in all, it is spot on without exception. Thanks.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to GMBasix | 2 years ago
2 likes

GMBasix wrote:

However, he does take an interest in the running of TfL and, given that the previous "See their side" campaign raise such ire, it is highly likely he would take more interest in a susequent iteration.  The post is an imaginary script approval meeting, so...

  1. No Met involvement
  2. Not a criminal justice matter

Therefore, in all, it is spot on without exception. Thanks.

This really has little to do with Khan

Such ire? actually not much, on a population level (plenty of ire in individuals, me included). The (ill-informed) decision to run this video, which in any case was pulled on review by the relevant committee in response to informed public concern, would seem to be a case study on what a mayor might refrain from getting involved in. It was a departmental matter, and unlikely to need escalating to the top.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
3 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

This really has little to do with Khan

Khan!!!

Avatar
Hirsute | 2 years ago
2 likes

Meanwhile the local rag reports a prosecution for speeding on a 20 in Upper Thames Street London

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19852971.man-broke-20mph-speed-limit...

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
8 likes

So many offences to choose from, so much evidence.

Formal complaint time. Then perhaps it will dawn on the police that dealing with the driver is less effort than dealing with a complaint.

Or crowd fund a private prosecution?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
7 likes

Seems to me that the primary problem here is not so much the police (lack of) action, but the daft rule that apparently requires them to choose between the offences in the first place. Why are they not able to pursue both the potential criminal charges and the road traffic offences at the same time, instead of having to play pass the parcel?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
0 likes

mdavidford wrote:

Seems to me that the primary problem here is not so much the police (lack of) action, but the daft rule that apparently requires them to choose between the offences in the first place. Why are they not able to pursue both the potential criminal charges and the road traffic offences at the same time, instead of having to play pass the parcel?

Because that would be double the admin? And having to deal with other parts of the police? And I doubt they're ever worried about not being able to fill their road traffic crime quota...(and not simply going through as assault etc. because we all know that don't apply to cyclists / cars, even if there's a body...) Also I think they're set up to do "threatening" mostly on the basis of stuff on the internet - excellent evidence 'cos it's already written down and you can browse twatter for a bit while collecting it!

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 2 years ago
9 likes

Can British Cycling, Cycling UK, or even Road.CC not assist with pursuing the police for action on this. It is outrageous that the Met think there is no case. This driver will undoubtedly use his car as a weapon again. Surely an example case for the £600 fine of using phone whilst driving is the minimum that could be applied, but this is also assault with a deadly weapon and death threats?

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
13 likes

That really is crying out for a report to the IOPC, I always naively assume that though the police might not be too hot on "minor" offences they will make sure the really bad people get theirs; clearly, as you can apparently drive on your phone, try and ram a cyclist then threaten to kill them with impunity, my assumption is badly wrong.

Avatar
GrandTourer | 2 years ago
1 like

Maybe if Greg was killed in the incident then the driver might have received a warning letter.

Avatar
bobbinogs replied to GrandTourer | 2 years ago
8 likes

Maybe if Greg actually worked for the police then they would have done something...

Avatar
pmurden | 2 years ago
0 likes

Met: enough said

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
5 likes

You think this is the limit of the police action against cyclists? Lancashire Constabulary has some news for you! After 4+ days in which the video uploading website was disabled, the Lancashire Boys in Blue have come up with a new dodge to disallow any video taken by cyclists (and, as it happens, by anybody including motorists)

Thie is the new condition, never seen before today, which you are obliged to agree to before you can report an incident to Lancashire Police (remember, they won't accept any reports without a video):

I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR 

Did you think that cyclist regulation, tabards with your number on etc. were the limit of impossible anti-cyclist attacks? Now, according to LC, you have to have some kind of large sign saying you're 'video equipped'. Some people will be pleased with this, as I've seen people on here advocating the sign. It's clearly a threat to prosecute cyclists for accepting the condition and then failing to display the sign. I am ready to be charged!

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
4 likes

wtjs wrote:

I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR 

So ... does that also apply to using a handheld video camera/smartphone to film an event in a public place? Because it seems to me there is little difference between a dashcam and a video camera except for the name on the box and one being attached to a car/bicycle and one being held in the hand.

Avatar
jonnystv replied to Jetmans Dad | 2 years ago
9 likes

If the above is verbatim from the Lancashire Police website then I think they have had some rather questionable legal advice. Or none at all.

Looking at the 'Exemptions' page on the ICO site (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-t...) clearly shows that it's nonsense.

This is a copy of the relevant bit:

Some things are not listed here as exemptions, although in practice they work a bit like an exemption. This is simply because they are not covered by the UK GDPR. Here are some examples:

Domestic purposes – personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the UK GDPR’s scope. This means that if you only use personal data for such things as writing to friends and family or taking pictures for your own enjoyment, you are not subject to the UK GDPR.

Law enforcement – the processing of personal data by competent authorities for law enforcement purposes is outside the UK GDPR’s scope (e.g. the Police investigating a crime). Instead, this type of processing is subject to the rules in Part 3 of the DPA 2018. See our Guide to Law Enforcement Processing for further information.

Perhaps pass on the link to the Lancashire Constabulary?

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to jonnystv | 2 years ago
3 likes

Agreed.  Its absolute bollocks. 

The DPO for Lanc Rozzer is data.protection [at] Lancashire.police.uk

@wtjs If someone gives me a link to the text on the submission portal I'll mail them (and attempt) to get it corrected.

Pages

Latest Comments