A London cyclist who gave police video footage that showed a moped rider kicking out at his bike as he passed him has been told that no action will be taken against the man in question because there were no independent witnesses to what happened.
The incident happened on the New Kent Road on the evening of 16 January as Chi Yong La rode home to Greenwich from his job in the West End with publisher Conde Nast.
Riding away from the kerb to avoid potholes, drain grilles and manhole covers, he exchanged words with a man on a moped who was undertaking him to his left.
As the man sped away, he aimed a kick at Chi's front wheel, leaving the cyclist struggling to maintain balance on the busy road.
"I was really shaken up," he told road.cc following the incident. "I was really holding on for dear life, making sure I didn't topple over."
Chi lodged a complaint with the police, and sent them a video of the incident - like many cyclists, he uses a helmet camera so that in the event of an incident involving a motor vehicle or pedestrian, he has something more than just his own word to fall back on.
The full video he sent to police can be seen here (contains some swearing).
The letter he received from the Traffic Criminal Justice section of the Metropolitan Policer Service's Operational Command Unit for the South East Region, reads:
I am writing concerning your complaint to police regarding the manner in which a motor vehicle bearing the registration mark GJ05FGF was ridden along New Kent Road @ 16:44 hours on the 16/01/2014.
I would advise you that it is the policy of the Metropolitan Police Service to investigate cases that have a realistic prospect of achieving a successful prosecution at court.
In view of the lack of independent witnesses to support your claim, we are unable to initiate proceedings on this occasion. However, the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle has been notified of your allegation and a record of the incident will be kept within this office.
Chi told us that the police response was "disappointing to say the least but I can't say I expect anything more."
One question the incident, and the police's reaction to it, does raise is just how seriously they take helmet camera footage, and why that should be seen as less acceptable than independent eyewitness testimony, which can be inaccurate depending on the person's recollection.
Another is that police regularly appeal to the public for help in catching suspects whose alleged crimes have been caught on CCTV, with no witnesses around, and where the footage is of much lower quality than that typically captured by helmet cameras.
In January 2012 we reported how motorist Scott Lomas was convicted of a public order offence after he threatened cyclist Martin Porter who was riding to work.
The Metropolitan Police only referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service after Porter had twice complained about their initial decision not to take action. despite his having provided them with helmet camera footage.
The fact that Porter is a Queen's Counsel, making him more suited than most to negotiating the criminal justice system, is likely to have been a factor in the case reaching its eventual conclusion.
Add new comment
73 comments
I hereby wish to retract this comment of mine further up in this thread. It was typed in frustration and anger. I don't think the police are the problem, in fact I believe that the vast majority of them are doing good and important work, and they could use more support and resources.
Its things like this that make me feel unsafe as a cyclist, particularly as a commute cyclist. If someone is allowed to act in that way, which could very easily have led to the death of the cyclist if he doesn't stay up and falls into the next lane, then wtf can you do to be safe. Ok a prosecution wouldn't stop the act but it might, just maybe, have removed someone with clear anger issues from the road, and hopefully society too, making everyone just that little bit safer. I wonder how long until this guy does something similar and causes serious injury. Would the police be so lenient had the cyclist crashed and been injured i wonder.
I wonder if a civil case, to get damages from the mopedist for the stress and panic caused, would have any chance of success. We could crowdfund the legal costs, as we did for the defence of the chap who rightly crossed a stop line when a car was occupying the Advanced Stop zone.
I wonder if a civil case, to get damages from the mopedist for the stress and panic caused, would have any chance of success. We could crowdfund the legal costs, as we did for the defence of the chap who rightly crossed a stop line when a car was occupying the Advanced Stop zone.
p*ss poor.
"Realistic chance of prosecution" is the killer blow, as between the CPS and a jury, it appears nigh on impossible to get a result.
I can only suggest he sends the footage to Robert Goodwill and asks what he intends to do to address behaviour like this if he seriously wishes to promote cycling
Why do the police not rely on independent witnesses for murder too, that would cut their workload down too.
Quite right, this could very easily have been a murder case. It should be attempted murder at least. But there I go again forgetting that a motor vehicle was involved, making murder and attempted murder completely legal.
I am surprised.
And my respect for law and justice and those involved in it as a profession diminishes daily.
"no action will be taken against the man in question because... they couldn't give a flying fcuk about no damn cyclists"
Or words to that effect.
We already knew a motorist can get away with anything in London...what else is new?
not surprised, again...
Is anyone really surprised?
handing out fixed penalty notices easy, gathering enough evidence to prosecute, not so easy. Convincing the CPS.......
I suspect the paperwork piles are also small and not so small respectively.
Pages