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
jonnystv replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
2 likes

On consultation with my wife, a solicitor specialising in, you guessed it, data protection, I have discovered that it's not so clear cut.

What the form is stating explicitly has yet to be tested in court; in particular using personal data for a purpose it was not collected for. So, submitting personal data for the purposes of law enforcement does not neccessarily make one a data controller.

Both Lancashire and Essex police websites use the same text; it's likely that many others do as well. They really shouldn't be, as the UK GDPR and the 2018 DPA are apparently much more nuanced than the statements of fact laid out in the text being discussed.

Her feeling was that, as well as being very close to wrong, the wording of the text could put many people off submitting their footage, as it may be inferred from the text that:

1 - you could potentially be sued by someone shown in the footage as you were'nt fulfilling all the requirements of a data controller

or

2 - that the footage my somehow become unadmissable as evidence.

This doesn't clear anything up I'm afraid but it's much shorter than the answer I got from my brief!

Avatar
wtjs replied to jonnystv | 2 years ago
2 likes

the wording of the text could put many people off submitting their footage

Of course! That's Lancashire Constabulary's intention. As a new visitor to the site, you can't be expected to know that I have been more than diligent in informing an unwilling audience on here (biker_phil excepted) just how bent LC traffic is (I have been fortunate enough to avoid any other LC departments, so far, apart from the equally bent Professional Standards), even though they're no doubt sick of hearing it. Hard luck! If Lancashire gets away with it, they'll all be trying it on even more and Essex appears to have joined them- anyone seen any cars with 'I am filming you' signs? Even I was surprised at today's transparent dodge- I will be carrying on without any signs, because I have the advantage of a couple of years worth of 'goods' on LC, and I'm ready to take them on in court- guess what they did about Robinson's of Bilsborrow 4-axle tipper lorry MV18 UJT hammering through a red light?- no prizes:

Avatar
wtjs replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
0 likes

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

Such confidence- I can see you don't live in Lancashire! All you have to do to see it is go to:

https://unitedkingdom1cpp-portal.digital-policing.co.uk/lancashire/appeal/public-dashcam-submission

now that it's working again, click 'Respond to this appeal', and 'I'm not a robot', and look at the bottom of the page- then look at what your own local force is writing!

Avatar
wtjs replied to jonnystv | 2 years ago
1 like

Perhaps pass on the link to the Lancashire Constabulary?

Pretty much everything that comes from Lancashire Constabulary TacOps (the dramatic name for people driving round in BMWs) is crap except their own driving. I haven't yet caught an of them close passing, red light crossing etc. This new condition that they may use to prosecute me will be crap as well, and it comes with the approval of Sgt 2459 Lavin- the man who threatened to prosecute me for being a cyclist in the way of a motorist who was then forced to cross the double white lines in a dangerous position on Wyre Bridge, Garstang. I urged him to do so, but he then disappeared for a couple of years and I heard nothing more. You should all watch out for your local forces trying this trick to disallow video evidence against motorists.

I may get my day in court now! However, I will be citing a letter dated today from Sgt. Lavin informing me that no action was taken over 6 serious red light crossing offences of Summer 2021 because they were too busy. Including this one

Avatar
wtjs replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
0 likes

For the observant, there's a special bonus additional red light offence visible, in addition to caravan towing Audi Q5 T90 JDT

Avatar
Rik Mayals unde... replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
1 like

Have you tried writing to Nigel Evans? To be fair to him, he always replies if you contact him. List all your complaints with plod. I'm not saying he will do anything but it's worth a letter.

Avatar
wtjs replied to Rik Mayals underpants | 2 years ago
1 like

Have you tried writing to Nigel Evans?

My man is Ben Wallace- North Preston and Wyre. You can safely assume I've done the lot! It's now compilations of all the indisputable offences LC have ignored, another letter to Ben Wallace- then YouTube and Bad Cops- The Preston Connection

Avatar
Awavey replied to Jetmans Dad | 2 years ago
1 like

No it categorically does not...this will be them overreacting to those video doorbell things which was all about invasion of privacy, there is no expectation of privacy in law in a public space.

Avatar
Surreyrider replied to Jetmans Dad | 2 years ago
2 likes

And what does it mean for those police appeals for dash cam footage that no doubt Lancashire also issue? I hope Greg files a complaint with the police commissioner. I also wish Road CC would do something more productive than publishing incident number 7,000 - it's getting nowhere fast otherwise. 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
4 likes

I knew you were not exaggerating that Lancs Plod has been very anti-Road enforcement, but either someone somewhere has loopholed to get someone off recently, especially with the two recent Met Police things, or they genuinely are just Asshats. 

Any other website will state if you are a business, you need GDPR but peronal dash / bikes cams you don't. Which is why you see some lorries mentioning cameras and cars don't. However just order a Passpixi and say you were wearing it. 

Avatar
the little onion | 2 years ago
8 likes

Institutionally anti-cyclist

Avatar
Safety replied to the little onion | 2 years ago
4 likes

I suspect we are the only minority group not covered by specific hate crime legislation.

Avatar
David9694 replied to the little onion | 2 years ago
0 likes

An apparent lack of professional curiosity - odds are that Mr Driver is mixed-up in something. 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to David9694 | 2 years ago
1 like

Bottles of wine to Downing Street. Or supplying something stronger for one of Gove's parties?

Avatar
Captain Badger | 2 years ago
12 likes

Insufficient??

The act on camera, accompanied by a threat to actually do it.

Maybe we should try seeing it from their side.....

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
8 likes

With this and lack of evidence on a video of someone "in control of a movong vehicle" with a coffee cup in one hand and a mobile in another, it does seem the that the Met / CPS have decided phone use cannot be proven and are ignoring anything else that can be used to charge drivers with. 

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
8 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

With this and lack of evidence on a video of someone "in control of a movong vehicle" with a coffee cup in one hand and a mobile in another, it does seem the that the Met have decided phone use cannot be proven and are ignoring anything else that can be used to charge drivers with. 

some years ago I remember the outcry around someone who was done (successfully/routinely) for eating a KitKat at a traffic light.

It can be done, there just needs to be the will from teh traffic team.

This was a facking doozey. The Met hasn't exactly crowned itself in glory here.......

Pages

Latest Comments