 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Apparently video evidence isn't enough!
no action will be taken against the man in question because there were no independent witnesses to what happened.
Jesus christ.
so, if I shoot someone, film myself doing it, but no one else sees me do it, I'll walk free?
no of course it doesn't, so why are the police so reluctant to take up these cases? is it because the prosecutions and sentences handed out are so rare and so tiny they see them as worthless?
I'd have thought video evidence plus one witness was enough - but IANA(English)L (corroboration is required in Scotland).
Perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the legalities of things explain to me why CCTV is acceptable as evidence to the police and why helmetcam (personal CCTV?) footage isn't acceptable?
Might have something to do with the risk of tampering?
It does seem a bit weird though as warton points out.
As I understand it that's correct druid.
Nothing to do with helmet cams footage being tampered with that is easy to check. Nor lack of independent witnesses try lamping a lone copper and see if he lets you go as no one else saw it. Nor because it is word against word most rapes and domestics are. Pure can't be bothered not a priority.
surely corroboration would be video evidence.
I have said before, the first thing I would do after reporting an incident like this to the police, would be to get lawyered up. It is clear that the police and CPS just don't give a flying **** about the very real dangers presented to vulnerable road users, and we need someone on our side to guide us through the process and fight for our interests.
And by the way it would be the Crown Prosecution Service that would have made the decision for the police not to charge the suspect, not the police.
I thought that the police now have greater "scope" for deciding what goes gets passed to the CPS than they did a few years ago.
CTC and CDF may well be interested in taking this kind of thing on.
Of course, it is possible that the Police discovered something else that maybe put the video into a different context - that would be the only thing I can think of that could justify the lack of even a caution
Crankboy (or others), is it possible and what would be the outcome of a civil action in cases like this or e.g. where a cyclist gets lamped and the attacker gets a slap on the wrist?
civil cases only result in compensation for actual loss so physical injury or damage to bike and nervous shock if there is some physical injury that it stems from so unless a serious assault usually more hasssel than it's worth to sue. If it was serious and resulted in injury it would be odd for the police to take no further action.
I recall a website recommending that if you intend to use video footage as evidence, you leave the camera rolling from the moment of the crime, through the 999 call, and if possible til the police turn up then hand it over- I don't know if that's a real thing, or just a convincing sounding myth.
Sadly sometimes the law is an ass. Realmen have to Police with it.
Hora in what way is the Law an ass in this?
If the moped rider had made a racist remark as he kicked the bike maybe the police would have been on the case straight away? 🙂
Jeeeze, must be some sort of appeal 😛
Association of Chief Police Officers gave their view on this sort of thing yesterday in the Independent
Police have welcomed this growing popularity. Paul Marshall, Suffolk's deputy chief constable, said: "Increasing use is being made by the public of digital cameras to record evidence of offences which can be used by the police to support prosecutions. This is welcomed by Association of Chief Police Officers as quite often the only evidence available is an eyewitness account which is disputed by the alleged offender."
I think private prosecutions are the way ahead for cyclists and I'm keen to donate to the cause. Its not about winning huge damages but rather making society wake up and realise that they cant treat cyclists as second class citizens. Whether its cars not indicating, using mobile phones, speeding, running lights (as opposed to jumping them), pedestrians stepping into the road - they all need to re-assess their lazy attitude to cyclists. Some hard legal cases, scaring a few people witless at the thought and worry at having to go to court would do a lot of good.
The Police just do not care. 97% (approx) of them despise cyclists.
Police don't prosecute. They report and present. I must know the entire 3% of the force then. They are normal people with the same interests as everyone else except they get sworn at and attacked a bit more often than most. They get as frustrated as everyone else.
To be fair though nothing much happened really and we've no idea what happened prior to the video clip.
As an aside if a moped can ride between you and the curb with room for a kick then unless you are turning right you are too far over. Potholes can't be as bad as cyclist claims as the moped would have hit them. Think of it like track racing you only want a gap in one side so you can know where things are coming from and where to look.
As an aside if a moped can ride between you and the curb with room for a kick then unless you are turning right you are too far ove
Oh dear, let's not start this again, but, you shouldn't be getting undertaken in the same lane by a motorised vehicle at all.
Apparently video evidence isn't enough!
I've watched the video. The number plate is not visible (although the camera operator narrates it). The Motorcyclist's face is not seen. Its not clear that there is actual contact rather than attempted contact (not that attempt is OK) - but I can see how the prospects of a conviction may be uncertain.
dragon - MemberAs an aside if a moped can ride between you and the curb with room for a kick then unless you are turning right you are too far over.
Just so we're clear, no. Please, don't give anyone advice on riding a bike on the road?
To be fair though nothing much happened really
I'll have to watch the video again - I recall seeing a truck passing at what I'd guess was the speed limit shortly before the moped undertook the cyclist and then attempted to kick his front wheel - in my book that's not nothing much
On a dual carriageway in the dark and wet that's the position I'd ride in
What does the video show? It's not working for me. Can the VRM be seen?
Whether its cars not indicating, using mobile phones, speeding, running lights (as opposed to jumping them), pedestrians stepping into the road - they all need to re-assess their lazy attitude to cyclists.
How are any of those directly impacting cyclists, or even vaguely related to "97% of the police hating cyclists"?! You could say the same as a pedestrian, motorcyclist, other driver etc.
this works for me
strange move by truck driver as well?
looks to me like he's in the primary position initially and then seems to move in towards the curb to the more usual secondary position. Both are perfectly fine but does anybody know why he was in the primary position initally before the video footage started? was it a asl at lights and he was taking the road ahead of a car or something else? He does seem a long way out initially?
interesting comments from the policeman re. cameras. I've been thinking of buying one, if only to report the multitudes of people I see texting on my commute
It looks to me like they are two rather narrow lanes (not what I would really classify as a dual carriageway, but somewhere extra lanes have been squeezed into the space just by painting lines on the tarmac.) Very much a place where there is no room to overtake a bike even if he was riding in the gutter, so much safer to take the lane than give drivers the impression that there is space to overtake where there isn't.
Blimey. Before watching the video I thought, well because the moped rider didn't actually kick the bike! Attempted it... but then watching it, he quite clearly undertakes a cyclist because in his opinion the rider is too far out into the lane - what a dickhead move! Amazing.
Amazing that nothing will be done, but then it is ... London.
[img] 
[/img]
Doesn't even sound like theres a wide spread record of his actions! "record of the incident will be kept [b]in this office[/b]".
There was one other person on that video claiming that the moped rider performed a similar move on them, not too far away.
I very much doubt its an isolated incident.
Its not about winning huge damages but rather making society wake up and realise that they cant treat cyclists as second class citizens.
No, I think you are wrong. It should be about making society wake up and realise that they can't be such total ****ers to each other.
Irrespective of whether a cyclist was involved in this, the moped rider was acting like a total bell-end and his actions could have resulted in injury or death. The guy needs a [legal] slapping. If he'd got a highly publicised legal one, then maybe other bell-ends would think before they did something similar
There was a thing about a similar incident in the CTC mag a few months ago. The victim in that case, iirc, was both a lawyer and very persistent. The police were basically uninterested. He kept on pressing and got a result of sorts. You just have to make a nuisance of yourself so the police involved decide its easier to follow up the incident than constantly having to fend off your pestering.
TBH Other than the Commentary, I'm not sure there really is much actual video evidence caught of the attempted Kick, you can see the scooter goons trailing foot as he pulls ahead, I can see how the footage might be considered by the police as tenuous in that respect, but I'm surprised they didn't go after him for going up the inside of a cyclist and then slowing down for an argument, that seems like a deliberately risky action on its own.
Although I do wonder how much of a magnet for trouble a prominent Helmet Cam is TBH, I went out for an MTB ride a couple of Sundays back with my helmet cam mounted on my noggin, not recording (I only had it capture my Gnarlcore-radness when I got to the woods) I did notice the odd extra dirty look from motorists, I don't normally get those looks without the camera, even when lycra'd up in commuting traffic.
I think perhaps a Helmet cam send the implied message [I]"I'm looking out for bad drivers"[/I] whether or not that is actually the case...
And then you've got the Cycle-Gaz types who (IMO) are actively looking for things to object to, shout about, get into a confrontation and obviously post up online.
At one point (not so long ago) I did think Helmet cams were a good idea, I suppose they still have the potential to simplify the polices job when dealing with Traffic incidents, but I think currently they actually serve to antagonize borderline Dickheads into more dangerous actions, and as the police are not all that interested the footage, it just gets chucked online as evidence to the mounting, largely false, belief many people seem to have that there's some sort of "Road War" on between motorists and cyclists... There's not.
If the Police are genuinely keen on POV and Dash-mounted Camera evidence then they need to issue proper guidance to the public on how such evidence is gathered and submitted, and have agreed procedures for its assessment.
The very first rule would have to be [I]Do not share or publish the footage elsewhere[/I] online especially! These things being stirred up online won't help with any potential convictions, treat it as evidence not more fuel for ranty road users...
This is essentially an assault without battery. I would personally have forgone traffic legislation until I'd exhausted that avenue, and would have firstly considered common assault. That it is within a traffic context is irrelevant:
An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
I think the kicking out easily covers that one..!
I would need to speak to the CPS regarding the charge, but failing their authority to charge common assault I would pursue inconsiderate driving.
In my opinion that footage would result in a successful prosecution any old day of the week. The chances are that being shown that in interview the moped rider would not be able to give any reasonable excuse.
dunno if that's the cyclingsilk but he has had a few uphill struggles to get ****y driver behaviour taken seriously by the police/cps, if barristers struggle the rest of us are screwed.The victim in that case, iirc, was both a lawyer and very persistent. The police were basically uninterested.
If the letter had said "not enough evidence to secure a conviction on the rider of the moped but we've been around and told him in no uncertain terms his cards are marked" would atleast have been something. "I've jotted his reg down on a post-it and if anyone asks and we remember, it may be used if anything happens again....possibly" is shite
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.
The problem I have with this sentence is that as an investigating officer I don't actually know what has a "realistic prospect of achieving a successful prosecution at court" [i]until[/i] I've thoroughly investigated the incident/complaint.
Furthermore, it's not actually the Police's role to decide this, but the CPS' once they've reviewed the evidence that I have gathered during my investigation.
I'd imagine it was The Cycling Silk. He has a reasonably well-informed rant about cycling here
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/why-am-i-angry.html
Think of it like track racing
Indeed if everyone viewed the roads/commute/trudge to work like this it would all be so much safer for us all 😕
No idea how he got away with that
Might try this on a police cyclists and see what happens
I presume the actual kick is at 16seconds which is only just in shot but there's a second attempted kick straight after which is fully in shot.I'm not sure there really is much actual video evidence caught of the attempted Kick
the moped with 4"(?) tyres and suspension?Potholes can't be as bad as cyclist claims as the moped would have hit them.
Good one, miss interpreting what I wrote, I never said treat commuting like track racing only in terms of thinking about positioning, and minimising where things can come from.
In fact on further viewing there are no potholes on the inside of that road, you can see that on the vid. In fact I wish I had roads with that kind of quality of tarmac on my commute.
regardless of the potholes which the bloke who actually rides that road say are there and you (who presumably haven't) say are not, sticking to the left would leave space for a silly* car driver to attempt to squeeze between the rider and the truck, which is not a good thing.
*a silly car driver would attempt it, a sensible car driver wouldn't - I am not suggesting all car drivers are silly
Can I just check who on this thread is writing with professional experience? mildred is presumably a police officer - does cookeaa have any status in the legal system, or are you just spouting with no relevant experience?
Personally I'm still not quite sure how there is any lack of evidence of the rider aiming a kick.
The rider's position is entirely irrelevant to the case.
unless the policeman/CPSer in question viewed it and said "cheeky ****er is in the middle of the road, screw him, he deserves it, helmet cam warriors really get on my tits!" in which case it is, sadly, quite relevant 😥The rider's position is entirely irrelevant to the case.
Can I just check who on this thread is writing with professional experience? mildred is presumably a police office
Yes, I am speaking from professional experience, but also as a daily cycle commuter. Contrary to popular belief the Police don't hate cyclists because shockingly - many are also cyclists...!!!!!!
POV footage is great - do we doubt shop based CCTV when prosecuting shoplifters? No, course not. The thing is, video needs to be treated just like any other evidence. That is, it needs to be verifiable and integrity/continuity maintained. For example, in an incident where CCTV is available I will go and view it at source, and if it's any use I will 'cause' a copy or cd to be made. I will then 'seize' this evidence and book it into Police property, then have a number of viewable 'working copies' made (defence, prosecution etc...). This is all statemented and documented (even the booking in and out of the property store is documented) is used in the prosecution.
Quite often with POV you get a very selective edit presented in an indignant manner by someone who will settle for nothing less than a capital sentence; it's also often been around the Internet, again undermining its utility. Common sense is needed; that and patience.
Don't send it in the post - phone up report it as a crime. Get a Cop to visit you at home & offer a brew; show him or her the unedited footage and ask them their opinion. If you're reasonable with them they'll be reasonable with you.
Now I'm not suggesting that the cyclist in this footage hasn't been anything other than honest - but some if the stuff I see and hear challenges belief. Use common sense.
does cookeaa have any status in the legal system, or are you just spouting with no relevant experience?Personally I'm still not quite sure how there is any lack of evidence of the rider aiming a kick.
Unapologetically spouting of course (as that's what we generally do on this forum IME).
I simply don't think the footage is good enough quality and has the wrong angle to unequivocally say the moped rider was aiming a kick at the bike or its rider, I don't doubt the cyclists testimony that said kick was attempted, yes you can partially see a leg off the moped, but the devil is in the detail...
I reckon the rozzers should have been clearer, and that it is a quality of available evidence/witnesses issue, basically if it ain't quite in shot then unfortunately it didn't happen...
However the footage/audio does show the moped undertaking a cyclist (In a Bus lane?) and then chooses to delay this dodgy method of [I]making progress[/I] to have a shout at the cyclist, I think the Police could have successfully pursued him for that instead...
The rider's position is entirely irrelevant to the case.
Totally agree.
[quote=cookeaa ]Unapologetically spouting of course (as that's what we generally do on this forum IME).
That's fair enough - I was wondering if your opinion was based on relevant experience and I should pay attention rather than just ignore you 😉
sound advice from Mildred there - thanks