Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

No charges for road rage van driver who assaulted cyclist (+ video of incident)

YouTube footage shows van driver assaulting cyclist - but police say Home Offices guidelines leave them powerless to act

A driver who assaulted a cyclist during a road rage incident will not be charged with an offence by West Midlands Police due to Home Office guidelines – despite the episode being caught on video and bearing strong similarities to one in south east London in 2011 which resulted in charges being brought and a conviction secured after footage was posted to road.cc.

Helmet-cam footage of the latest incident was posted to YouTube by the victim under the user name BlackCountryBikeCam, but was subsequently taken down, possibly as a result of a complaint from the van driver involved, reports BikeBiz. However, the video was mirrored by other users, who have reposted it.

The white van involved, registration number FP07KJN, can first be seen around 10 seconds in, pulling out of a yard, with the rider moving past it on the inside then ahead of it to get around a car that is being parked, although the queue of traffic ahead means that that manoeuvre would not have held up the van.

The rider, who is also on Twitter under the user name CCStev, said that he showed the footage to police, but they told him that Home Office rules meant they were unable to press charges, because the driver, after being made aware of the video, admitted his guilt, and had no previous convictions.

While the police insist their hands are tied, the cyclist is said to have been unhappy with the alternative provided – that he seek a “local resolution” with the motorist, although it is a course of action he has reluctantly accepted.

The van is operated by a Birmingham-based pet business, Weird and Wonderful of Birmingham, which has deleted its Facebook and Twitter accounts as a result of the complaints it was receiving from cyclists, as well as disabling the online feedback form on its website. An email from BikeBiz has gone unanswered.

According to CCStev, “The driver was not charged. He was brought in for interview and initially claimed provocation, that I kicked his van and kicked him in the chest.

“He changed his story when told there was video evidence. He still claimed I kicked him and the van and only after the officer pointed out that she couldn't see any of that, on his solicitor's advice he finally accepted full responsibility.

"Because he had no police record and admitted to the offence, under the ridiculous scoring system imposed on the police he was eligible for a caution.

“As the victim I was given the choice of the driver receiving a caution or I could accept a local resolution, the terms of which that I would receive an amount in compensation and a written apology. I'm far from happy about it but reluctantly accepted the resolution.

“I don't think the police are to blame but the decisions made by Government departments that govern them.

“This was a violent, unprovoked attack that has no place in society and I'm very disappointed and angry that the driver will not face criminal consequences."

In February, national cyclists’ organisation CTC launched a campaign urging cyclists to write to their local Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) asking them to make road safety a priority in their policing plans.

However, as this incident shows, Home Office red tape can mean that the hands of the police are tied.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

102 comments

Avatar
Angelfishsolo replied to cyclinglawyer | 11 years ago
0 likes
cyclinglawyer wrote:
stumps wrote:

No previous convictions mean he is entitled to a caution if he admits the offence, its not mumbo jumbo its what we, as Police officers, have to abide by.

Civil proceedings can still be taken out which is not a Police matter.

Exactly what Thames Valley Police said to me when I was assaulted by Timothy Denman. I spent many hours and some expense getting a Judgment against him and then with the support of CTC engaged solicitors to enforce it. He made an application to the Court to pay at a derisory rate which the Court granted and failed to make him pay any of my lawyers' costs. The result is that taking civil proceedings was completely uneconomic.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-timothy-denman-saga-dra...
I do wish the police would stop saying 'We will not do anything, but never mind you can always sue.'
On whether hands are tied the 'Gravity Factors Matrix' allows account to be taken of the vulnerability of the victim. There is huge discretion here. How many rioters were cautioned after an admitted first offence? Answer: none, all prosecuted.
Where there is a will there is a way.
Sadly there is no will.

It does seem that if you wish to harm someone, make sure they are on a bicycle.

Avatar
swampy replied to Stumps | 11 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

No previous convictions mean he is entitled to a caution if he admits the offence, its not mumbo jumbo its what we, as Police officers, have to abide by.

Civil proceedings can still be taken out which is not a Police matter.

Yes stumps we do, he is entitled to a caution if the inspector authorizes it. but given the gravity of the act, and the fact that there appears to be no remorse then there should be a predilection to charge. The problem is now that means the officer in case (oic) will have to compile a file. As there's been an admission CPS don't need to be consulted. If I'm honest this looks like a case of the oic taking the easiest route to a detection. A community resolution is much less paperwork, and to a less than dedicated police officer still a detection, which they will be measured on as part of their performance.
HOWEVER policy dictates that the victim MUST agree to the resolution. I am seeing more and more cases of officers "pushing" community resolution on victims as its easier for them than doing a file and going to court. THIS IS WRONG, we're supposed to support victims aren't we?
If this was me I'd be making an official complaint about the officer (dereliction of duty maybe?)

Avatar
Coleman replied to swampy | 11 years ago
0 likes
swampy wrote:
stumps wrote:

No previous convictions mean he is entitled to a caution if he admits the offence, its not mumbo jumbo its what we, as Police officers, have to abide by.

Civil proceedings can still be taken out which is not a Police matter.

Yes stumps we do, he is entitled to a caution if the inspector authorizes it. but given the gravity of the act, and the fact that there appears to be no remorse then there should be a predilection to charge. The problem is now that means the officer in case (oic) will have to compile a file. As there's been an admission CPS don't need to be consulted. If I'm honest this looks like a case of the oic taking the easiest route to a detection. A community resolution is much less paperwork, and to a less than dedicated police officer still a detection, which they will be measured on as part of their performance.
HOWEVER policy dictates that the victim MUST agree to the resolution. I am seeing more and more cases of officers "pushing" community resolution on victims as its easier for them than doing a file and going to court. THIS IS WRONG, we're supposed to support victims aren't we?
If this was me I'd be making an official complaint about the officer (dereliction of duty maybe?)

Well said. Cyclists cycling near Olympic Park - Kettled, arrested, held overnight, charged and a few convicted of 'public order offences'. A huge amount of police, court and innocent people's time wasted but it appears the police had the resources available. Violent and unprovoked assault - caution. Nothing to see here folks, he's only a cyclist.

Avatar
Vlad Levachyov replied to Stumps | 9 years ago
0 likes

stumps wrote:

No previous convictions mean he is entitled to a caution if he admits the offence, its not mumbo jumbo its what we, as Police officers, have to abide by. Civil proceedings can still be taken out which is not a Police matter.

 

And, do you wonder why people have no trust in the police, no respect for them and most are in fact avoidant of the police? I don't after seeing that this blatant assault is being swept under the carpet. Prior convictions or not, this driver deserves to be punished for his assault. 

Avatar
Timsen | 11 years ago
0 likes

The guy looks like he's wearing a onesie.... no wonder he has anger management issues !

Avatar
richardvaltos | 11 years ago
1 like

I suspect the police interpretation is wrong. He should pursue civil proceedings. The video is damning. Blaming it on home office "red tape" sounds like a classic get out clause. Anyway suspect this guy will get punished by karma eventually. Guidelines are just that not rigid rules. Charge him.

Avatar
miuzikboy | 11 years ago
0 likes

all we need is a name...

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 11 years ago
1 like

Short bloke with muscles. Classic Roid rage. Lot's of them out there.

Remember if this happens to you - your bike is your shield. Stand your ground. No one likes a oily chain set in the face

I heard a story about a Peak District training run where a Range Rover came too close to the group and the driver stopped and got out for some argy bargy. A recently retired pro of huge experience pulled his bike upright ( apparently to turn it around and flee..) and some how managed to hit the driver between the eyes with his front wheel! The driver took to inspecting the adjacent ditch, apologies were made, and the cyclists continued on their way..  3

Avatar
bashthebox | 11 years ago
1 like

Some people are dangerously insane. That's just not what a sane person does, is it? Jump out of his vehicle, twice, in order to punch someone going about their business? Quite clearly, ignoring any politics of the road, that van driver is unstable and therefore a dangerous menace. At the very least, he needs some sort of counselling to sort out his issues and reduce his dancer to society. And why he can't be given an appropriate punishment is ludicrous.

Avatar
Dog72 | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'd love to meet him and have a chat

Avatar
NeilXDavis replied to Dog72 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Yeah and seeing as though we dont have any previous we can give him a good slapping with no fear of prosecution. What a crazy justice system we have....

Avatar
barbarus replied to Dog72 | 9 years ago
0 likes
Dog72 wrote:

I'd love to meet him and have a chat

Is that what is meant by "local resolution"?

Pages

Latest Comments