police not prosecuting for a motorist dangerous driving, options

Sorry, got no advice, just.. wow. Hope she gets some kind of recompense.

stating no previous and/or criminal convictions

At the very least getting something on record so that this is no longer applicable would be a start. Should be able to escalate it, hopefully someone will know the proper procedure. PCC?

Head smashing windscreen a a sure sign of a decent impact. Why were police not called at the time?

A couple of thoughts:

• Escalate within police to next up the chain of command.
• Escalate to elected officials - PCC/MP/Councillors (this will depend on where you are in the country).
• Cycling UK legal advice re: a civil claim?  Edit - see this has already been pursued via BC

Have she got legal expenses cover on her home insurance - may be worth a call to them if she has.

@nickjb thats what i thought, will this record remain on her file/name/address as she is not getting points, she has been refered to National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme 

Do the police have access to insurer claims, the driver may have had previous at fault accidents that did not involve the police.

hopefully someone will have

could have been killed, seriously injured

Sadly the "could" part of this is the bit CPS would look at. If it was "did" get injuries etc it would be different. There's such a backlog in courts that it's always going to be this outcome 

rOcKeTdOg

Sadly the “could” part of this is the bit CPS would look at. If it was “did” get injuries etc it would be different. There’s such a backlog in courts that it’s always going to be this outcome

Soft tissue injuries, are injuries. Bruising for example can attract significant financial settlements. If it requires an operation to treat (as in the OP case) then even more-so.

I had police Scotland refuse to take any action for a driver who nearly drove into a group of children and then got out his car and assaulted me.
The driver was a visitor from Hull - and as law is different in Scotland the suggestion was it was a two officer, two-day trip to go and interview.
The bit that really riled was they did not even phone or write a letter - so the driver had no notification that his actions resulted in a police complaint. And my letter asking if this would go on some kind of record has gone unanswered.

So good luck getting a police reaction to what they see as a 'no-one was harmed' incident.

Why wouldn't you report it when it happened?

Your friend needs to make a tv drama out of it, that'll guarantee some progress!

2 weeks later police have decided not to prosecute driver (middle-aged woman) , stating no previous and/or criminal convictions, courts no capacity etc..

will this record remain on her file/name/address as she is not getting points, she has been refered to National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme

Effectively, the Police have dealt with it. The injuries, damage are another issue.

A lack of a criminal matter does not mean she cannot pursue a civil claim for injury, she can instruct a cycling specialist such as Leigh Day solicitors to deal with claim, it sounds like she won't have any issues evidencing the claim to them for a claim against the car driver, plus then the car driver will be paying back that claim in increased premiums for quite a while.

Not as good, but she will be compensated for injuries.

Terrible. As an aside, I see this all the time now (corner cutting). Mainly at junctions, but also near me there's an 80 degree blind bend on the road (built-up area), I'd say 50% of the vehicles I see just lazily drift over to the wrong side of the road a bit rather than slowing down and having to steer a tiny bit more. On a blind bend! What is it with some drivers that simply sticking to the correct side of the road is too much trouble now??

Black box should be fitted to all vehicles, mandatory cameras, check by AI with any suss driving flagged up for human verification.

Part of the course.  Driver that broke my spine (turned right across carriageway coming into me).  Police officer investigating said to my wife (I was high on morphine in hospital for over 6 1/2 weeks, just said 'your insurance will sort it'.  Filled all the forms in when I was not quite as high as a kite a few weeks later, nothing.

This was 8 years ago - driver didn't even get an awareness course.  This was GMP - very anti-cyclist.

1st step. Complain to IPCO.

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints/submit-a-complaint

and I'd write to your MP to complain too. There's an election coming so they may be interested for once.

Any police commissioner where it happened too ? Bend their ear as well.

its not really the police who refuse to prosicute, but they can refuse to pass details onto the CPS if they really don't think there's the evidence. It would be good to find out if its the police or CPS blocking the way.

Its unlikely to be dangerous driving, but seems to meet the criteria for careless driving, which can be dealt with via a FPN (so not involving courts), in the same way speeding can. Given the evidence, it seems unlikely the driver would try to avoid the FPN (ie challenge it) - although the time to issue one may have expired.

Have she got legal expenses cover on her home insurance – may be worth a call to them if she has.

AIUI you might get a phone call, but they won't be interested in taking it forward as it's there as insurance against you being taken to court, not to fund a case you want to bring. It exists because without it (and 3rd party liability cover) you could end up in court, lose with huge bills, the other party gets your house, and your mortgage company is very upset. Which is why "house" insurance covers you for lots of things, it's protecting their asset.

I'd certainly be complaining, but she's obviously been offered a course instead of being charged - seems lenient to me given that the driver collided with your friend. Not like she was caught doing 50 in a 40.

Bear in mind the entire justice system is ****ed after years of cuts

AIUI you might get a phone call, but they won’t be interested in taking it forward as it’s there as insurance against you being taken to court, not to fund a case you want to bring. It exists because without it (and 3rd party liability cover) you could end up in court, lose with huge bills, the other party gets your house, and your mortgage company is very upset. Which is why “house” insurance covers you for lots of things, it’s protecting their asset.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. If people have taken the optional legal expenses cover under a home policy (which is what is likely being talked about here rather than defence costs) then this extra cover will take action for you/with you/funded by them/using their lawyers, if you're 51%+ likely to win.

eg, Direct Line current Home Insurance policy wording:
A Core cover
You’re covered for
Personal injury
We will pay costs for an incident that causes physical bodily injury to you, or leads to your death.

Costs are defined as:
Costs
> all properly incurred, reasonable and proportionate fees, expenses and disbursements charged by the appointed
representative and agreed by us. Legal fees and disbursements will be assessed on the standard basis or in accordance with any fixed recoverable costs scheme, if applicable
> the fees incurred by your opponent that you are ordered to pay by a court and any other fees we agree to in writing.

No exclusion for any motor related stuff.

Good luck. I was hit by a car - drove straight into the back of me on a main road.

Bike destroyed, ambulance for me. Stay in hospital to get pinned and plated back together again and 16 weeks on crutches and lengthy rehab.

Police cane to 'interview me' after i came out of hospital. I asked was he charged, they said 'no, we didnt think it was a serious injury'.....

I had to take the driver to court in a civil case. No charges/prosecution.

@SSS - ffs.

Anyone want to form a vigilante group?

Fred

Bear in mind the entire justice system is **** after years of cuts

Its okay though, they are going to get 150 judges to process Rwanda appeals, so we are all good.

Black box should be fitted to all vehicles, mandatory cameras, check by AI with any suss driving flagged up for human verification.

Including bicycles?

That would be good for the small minority of inconsiderate cyclists.

small minority of inconsiderate cyclists

On the other hand, if a driver collides with a cyclist because they're driving like a dick, the cyclist gets hurt. If it's the other way round, the cyclist still gets hurt. Incidents where pedestrians are hurt colliding with a cyclist are very small in number annually and in general, the cyclist gets hurt too.

the "no previous" gets me - on that basis they could be doing this every week and getting away with it.

@nickfrog, please give me a measure of the harm done on the roads by drivers Vs cyclists. Number of deaths for instance?

Might be worth talking W cycle-sos or Leigh day for an assessment if they would represent your friend.

Got hit pretty much head on by a car pulling out around parked cars into my lane. Me in hospital to pin tibial plateau fracture.

Police came to accident, spoke to driver who admitted he'd seen me, but thought I was a jogger (evening, had seen my front lights)

Police gave him a warning letter for without due care and attention only, said as no witnesses there were not sufficient evidence for prosecution.

I had no cover, but spoke W both cycle-sos and Leigh day, who were willing to take on as a no win no fee case. There is also some kind of indemnity policy for doctor assessments and other stuff.
Driver's insurer has just admitted full liability, which is good news. But it takes forever, we are 18 months post prang, and still going through the paperwork

If you aren't a member of CTC or BC it's worth taking that on for the cover provided in the event of sh1t happening

Bear in mind the entire justice system is **** after years of cuts

Party of law and order.

By the logic of the police decision in this RTA, nobody should have ever been charged or convicted of any crime in UK history... What a carp response!

stating no previous and/or criminal convictions, courts no capacity etc.

sweet! I have no previous or criminal convictions other than being marked as a ‘person of interest’ after an altercation with an idiot driver. So week long crime spree here I come!

Thanks all , yes Leigh day involved and civil process (bike damage, personal injury etc)  has been started , just such a shame it seems drivers have no accountability ..

it seems vulnerable road users don’t matter

Will pass on well wishes , advise

ps in terms of home insurance/ additional legal policy

they will  take on issues as long as they believe they can win them, I used mine 15 years ago for an employment unfair dismissal claim

If you can be arsed, make a pain of yourself with the IPCO, your local councillor and the police commissioner from your area.
We (wife and I) had a very dangerous and close pass by a driver from a local bus company in Derbyshire. I'm not by nature particularly reactive but this incident was really frightening and I reported it

Derbyshire police investigated and judged that we were at fault for being in the way of a heavy vehicle... seriously...
workout how much of your life you want to set aside to chasing this up. The Police simply don't have the ability or empathy to deal with incidents like yours

Derbyshire police investigated and judged that we were at fault for being in the way of a heavy vehicle… seriously…

What happened to the whole most vulnerable road user spiel? What a shit outcome here and for the OP’s friend. I appreciate that the police and courts are stretched but FFS.

1<br />funkmasterpFull Member<br />Derbyshire police investigated and judged that we were at fault for being in the way of a heavy vehicle… seriously…<br />What happened to the whole most vulnerable road user spiel? What a shit outcome here and for the OP’s friend. I appreciate that the police and courts are stretched but FFS.<br /><br />

the irony for us was that Derbyshire police were running tbe 1.5m campaign at the time.. you know, protecting vulnerable road users and all that… yet my complaint led to basically “you shouldn’t have been in front of a heavy vehicle” and “my complaint about driver of long standing could be detrimental to his career, and I should think carefully about this”

The police either don’t have time to care, can’t be arsed to care or are too stupid to care. <br />i fear its the latter…

@nickfrog, please give me a measure of the harm done on the roads by drivers Vs cyclists. Number of deaths for instance?

I am sure it doesn't even compare in terms of deaths. However it might be interesting to look at injuries to pedestrians for instance, not sure if there are stats on that. The point is that if we want to be as draconian as described with the black box, we might as well not exclude cyclists in the interest of fairness.

OK - time for some balance!   The title says "not prosecuting" and that is technically accurate, in that it seems they are offering the driver the option to attend a rehabilitation course as an alternative to prosecution.  Personally I don't like the fact this is a way of dodging points and so effectively increases the window of opportunity to commit multiple minor offences before totting up - but its the system in England and Wales, voted on in parliament and been in use for years.  So if you accept that such schemes exist, I'd suggest before creating a fuss with the cops that she needs to have a calm and sensible conversation with herself about the options here.

1. The police (CPS) refer the matter to court.

The case will proceed very slowly through the court system and eventually end up at a hearing. Perhaps 12 months from now!  She may plead guilty. She may not - many people faced with the uncertainty of court and a belief that the magistrates will see how it was all just a dreadful accident will plead not guilty.  In that case the case will drag on potentially another 12 months, possibly more.  Everytime it calls in court there is the potential for the CPS to screw up and the case be dropped / thrown out.  Its not a massive risk but its certainly not zero.  If it gets to trial the OP's friend will inevitably have to give evidence.  Whilst many of us here would revel in having our day in court, in reality its not a fun experience, you don't get to grandstand and will probably waste at least a day of the OP's friend's time (even if her evidence is only 30 mins long).  Its possible after that that the accused is found not guilty.  Thats definitely a non-zero risk: CPS screw ups, cop's screwing up their evidence, a bench that like middle aged women and hate cyclists etc.

If she pleads or is found guilty she would then get some points (3-9) and a fine (probably low hundreds).  Realistically on these circumstances a first offender would not be disqualified, I'd be surprised it it was more than 6 pts, and not surprised if it was 3*.  The fine is reduced for a guilty plea and she'll have costs to pay which are high if she goes to trial.  She won't necessarily have learned anything - indeed some people leave the court having been convicted on cyclist evidence hating cyclist more than when they went in!  Whilst the case was pending its had zero impact on her driving.  From a totting up perspective 12 points apply from offence date to offence date - if it takes 2 years to get to trial they've almost expired by the time they are added and there's fairly low risk of totting up!  Depending on the driver's personality it will either cause her a load of stress whilst the case is pending, or be water off a ducks back.

*sentencing in careless driving is supposed to focus on the quality of the driving not the consequences; if she pleads guilty the video won't normally be shown and a good statement in mitigation can easily make that sound not that bad and the injuries just unlucky.  A good CPS prosecutor would counter it but good CPS prosecutors aren't dealing with guilty pleas for minor road traffic matters - you will have the just qualified CPS prosecutor just desparate not to **** up, indeed if its dealt with be written pleas the CPS may not even read what the defence mitigation says.

2. The police (CPS) issue an offer of fixed penalty.

£200. 3pts.   If she accepts it the matter is closed.  if she doesn't the case goes to court (option 1).  From a totting up perspective the points apply sooner - but if she's probably made it 20 years without any points she is fairly unlikely to get 9 more in short order so low risk to her.  She'll forget the penalty after a short period.

3. The police (CPS) issue a course.

Typically for careless driving offences these are priced a little under £200 and either 1/2 day or full day depending on the scheme.  The attraction to the driver is you get no points.  If she accepts and completes it the matter is closed.  if she doesn't the case can either go to fixed penalty or court (option 1 or 2).  Realistically this is the only one of the three options thats likely to have a prospect of changing the driver's behaviour.  That is not guaranteed, but its more likely than filling out a form, or spending a day in court.  If the aim is to make the roads safer this is probably the most likely to succeed.  The costs to the driver are comparable to a fixed penalty and inconvenience comparable to sitting in court.

So none of the options are ideal, but they are the reality, so the OP's friend needs to consider what she wants from the possible options, it could be that option 3, where the driver is essentially admitting fault and spending a day of her time learning to be a better driver is better than a driver who denies wrong doing and drags the case on for ages forcing the OP's friend to waste her time in courts etc.

With that course it’s usually part classroom based and part out on the road based with an instructor. As this has been offered there will be no further action taken at this time.

I think if there is something similar that happens around careless driving within so many years of that course completion (maybe 3 or 5 years) then at that point a prosecution can be taken forward.

That really sucks, whenever I get a close pass or cut off on a roundabout I imagine myself in that situation, injured while the person who put me in that state to get to work 5 seconds earlier suffers no consequence. I avoid roads as much as possible

That said the police cracked down on luxury watch theft in Kensington and Chelsea lately so at least we know they are spending their time on something truly worthwhile

Well until recently, due to Post Office scandal, I didnt know that you are actually allowed to take private persecutions for criminal offences

thanks @poly that sums it up very well, just so annoying, the CCTV is clear as day, and with the injuries caused,

its a shame they don't get an FPN of say 3/6/9 points and allow them to do the course to save themselves 3/6 points.

do the police have access to insurance claims information?, ie would they know if the driver had previous at fault accidents in the last x years..

its a shame they don’t get an FPN of say 3/6/9 points and allow them to do the course to save themselves 3/6 points.

I agree that at a glance it seems unfair that you can dodge points by doing the course, but if someone is genuinely remorseful and wants to be a better driver I'd rather they did a course than get points and blunder on.  You have to remember fixed penalties weren't designed to be "just" they were designed to stop routine matters grinding the justice system to a halt.  Then courses were intended to re-eductate people who have done something stupid once, because a fine and 3 points is actually less of an inconvenience than people perceive to the average driver.  I don't know if there's good data on how effective courses are for careless driving.  We've all seen (and possibly many of us have) taken a corner too wide and "got lucky" there was nobody in the way.  Probably best use of the court's time is with the people who gratuitously drive badly and refuse to accept they are in any way wrong.

do the police have access to insurance claims information?, ie would they know if the driver had previous at fault accidents in the last x years..

No but if she's been on a course before they would know that - so you can draw the inference that nobody has reported it to the police, or the police have not found fault.  Whilst not every "accident" gets reported to the police many do (injuries, obstructions, really bad driving, dispute about fault, issues with exchanging details, etc).  I think its unlikely that she's a serial "crasher" and getting away with it.   If she does have multiple at fault claims then her insurers will be hammering her premiums for longer than any court penalty would take to pay!