You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I am in shock.
One of my club mates got deliberately knocked off yesterday and it's on video. A car / caravan combo drove past some mates riding yesterday, close pass horn blaring obviously pissed off at the minor inconvenience of being stuck behind the riders. Riders remonstrated the driver at the next set of lights. As they rode off the driver tipped the rear wheel of the rider, knocking him off the bike and luckily clear of the bike as the driver continued without stopping the car and caravan driving over the bike. It was all captured by a rear facing camera of the rider in front the guy knocked off. The driver only stopped when another driver who witnessed it all boxed them in.
Police shocked to see the video, but reckon he might get away with a drivers awareness course. WTAF.
Trying to main or kill someone using a motor vehicle = driver awareness course? Sounds about right for Looney Land.
How is that a driver awareness course? Should be off the road permanently.
Just wow. Don't be tempted to share the video yet until you've exhausted bugging the police about a proper response, sticking it on social media affects the chance if there is a trial and gives them a get out. In fact, not sure whether even posting about it could be prejuducial, maybe contact one of the cycling lawyers. Don't let the police palm it off, can you do a private prosecution for assault causing harm and damages, assume the bike is a write off?
Where was this and what was the driver like?
Semi-practical advice and not victim blaming. On the close pass with horn blaring we've already ascertained the driver is a headcase. My policy is to not escalate just to find out how much of a headcase, when they're armed with several tonnes of high speed crushing equipment. If it goes shit-shaped as this did, there's no comfort in having the moral high ground when you're under the wheels of a caravan.
No way would i accept them being charged with a minor offense. Apart from anything else there is leaving the scene.
Press the cops hard on it.
You can’t prejudice a trial if nobody has been arrested.
Police shocked to see the video,
Are they?
but reckon he might get away with a drivers awareness course. WTAF.
Nah...
The system is geared towards quick processing of "motoring offences" not recognizing dangerous assaults where a vehicle was used. Awareness courses are more effective for those prone to speeding, not road-ragers.
He'll go on the awareness course, pay the fee and emerge an unreformed arse with a story to tell and a bigger chip on his shoulder...
If it's genuinely "shocking" push for a prosecution.
There's a massive irony to a shed dragger being inconvenienced by another road user.
Still, I hope your friend gets a new bike and a prosecution is sought by the police as that sounds like far more than a slap on the wrists driving course is due.
can't speak from direct experience but a clubmate was told not to post videos on line while the police were deciding what to do. They might be trying to avoid taking action in this case, but I'd treat this as still in that limbo, while the OP's club mate is trying to make them deal properly with it.
On the leaving the scene, the driver could claim he was intimidated by the gang of cyclists and was heading to the nearest police station to report the accident caused by one of the cyclists.
Yeh the rider who filmed it put the video on Strava, I've told him to take it down.
Yes the bike is a write off.
Apparently the driver and wife / partner showed no remorse. Driver in his late 60s the rider was sat on the grass waiting for police they were stood a few metres away didn't ask once how he was, apologise or anything. In the riders words probably didn't appreciate / accept the seriousness of what they did.
This happened in Dorset.
Even if the police don’t charge him, then claim for the damages. This will be a civil case so a lower degree of evidence is required but it will involve his insurance company which will lose him his no claims discount. It may be worthwhile going back to the scene of the accident and taking additional photographs, especially if there is damage to the road surface.
Are you sure it was deliberate, perhaps the sun got in his eyes or he was swerving to avoid animal/vehicle/small child. I’m sure a half decent solicitor will have him back on the road with a clean license thinking he won in no time.
The bike/injuries is civil and totally different to the question of criminal charges.
There seems to be a failure in either the wording or the interpretation of "the law" that fails to recognise the possibility of vehicle being used as a weapon and it thus becomes assault with a weapon rather than careless driving or whatever.
That needs to change
If the police don't prosecute then is there anything preventing you sending the footage to his insurer as part of a claim? I can imagine a claims handler taking one look at that and a cancelled insurance policy following. Something he won't escape for many years. Combined with the claim from causing deliberate damage and injury should make his premium fatter than most criminal fines for a good few years.
The bike/injuries is civil and totally different to the question of criminal charges.
After asking the question, I went and googled. And an individual can bring a private prosecution, but it is recognised that it is difficult.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions
Assault causing actual bodily harm (must be cuts, grazes, bruises?). Criminal damage, which was reckless as to whether life was endangered......
The roads protester range rover woman was originally charged with assault and IIRC it was dropped when she agreed to a guilty plea for the dangerous driving
Police shocked to see the video, but reckon he might get away with a drivers awareness course. WTAF.
That seems the likely outcome after my experience a few years ago.
Driver deliberately grabbed my handlebars and dragged me towards some metal railings on a traffic island, all because I was in front of him at 5am! Even though it was directly outside Cardiff Prison and had multiple CCTV footage angles the police let him off with a stern talking to and bit further action! I put a formal complaint in about how it was handled and didn't get anywhere, fobbed off with it being "his first offence" etc.
Hopefully yours will have a different outcome but don't get your hopes up too high.
My worst punishment pass was a 'vanner.
He overtook when it was safe and had use of a totally clear turn right filter lane. He chose not to use any of it.
His oversized mirror nearly took my head off, then 1 second later the corner of the caravan arrived cm's off my right shoulder.
I was very, very angry and gave chase, as i knew there were roadworks about 2 mile up the road.
Went through a smiley face speed trap at 32mph... And as i reached the queue for the lights saw him make it through just as they changed to red.
I was going to wind down rhe jockey wheel to make him get out, then fill his face in.
Hope you clubmate recovers ok, he will get away with out any consequences in real terms, for an offence which could have been life changing.
The ironing is up at 9 on the irony o meter, a vanner getting miffed at being held up. Shoe - foot - other.
I've never understood the prosecutions brought in cases involving vehicles. In my head, based on the information in th op, there is alleged criminal damage, the vehicle has been used as a weapon to assault/attempt assault, in addition to dangerous driving. If the evidence supports the allegation why are drivers not charged with all of the offences committed?
Sorry for my ignorance, not a lawyer (or even an armchair lawyer)
When my rear camera was used to record a fatal accident, the police ceased it on scene and the card has never been returned (I did view the video at the inquest, however). Did they take away the evidence at the scene?
No way should it be published in a public forum until the police have decided how to proceed.
Wtaf.
I’m sorry to say if some bloke deliberately knocked me off the bike and then was forced by someone else to stop id have probably thrown a punch in his direction *
Obviously that’s not the appropriate response and id have ended up in trouble myself but I don’t think I’d be alone in doing that. It’s assault, no two ways about it
People like that need to be charged and banned, and I’d be kicking up a hell of a stink if the police don him off.
* caveat..I’m assuming the old xxxx didn’t look hard as nails😂
If someone is driving aggressively at you, yelling abuse at you or giving you a close pass, it's best to say nothing.
In the first instance because if you're wound up your more likely to get knocked over by other traffic, red mist having descended. I'll never chase after a car for that reason.
If you happen to catch up with the offending veihcle at the lights etc, remember that it has already been established that the occupant is a cretin so rather than getting into a heated argument, weigh up your options, check your escape route, keep your mouth shut and remember what wing mirrors are for.
I'm serious, an expensive repair is more likey to make a driver think again than getting involved in an argument that nobody won.
This is where we need to crowd fund a private prosecution.
On the leaving the scene, the driver could claim he was intimidated by the gang of cyclists and was heading to the nearest police station to report the accident caused by one of the cyclists.
Yep. This is a major loophole that I fell foul of. As soon as a motorist starts reading forums or consults a lawyer, they'll make sure this gets added to their story.
Priority number 1: Get a new bike out of the scumbag's insurance. In the end, injuries (usually) heal and new bikes are ace. Don't forget your mate'll need a new helmet/ clothing/shoes etc if those got damaged.
I wouldn't hold my breath on a prosecution, but see how that plays out. The key thing here, I think, is that you can hopefully prove that there was a second meeting and that intent is likely. Otherwise, the driver will just use the SMIDSY defence.
If that doesn't go anywhere, there are two further avenues:
Write to the Police and Crime Commissioner in the area asking why this was not prosecuted given the evidence. If you can, reference some local policy about road safety.
Write to your MP. A letter from them to the P+CC can really pull some levers, but this will depend on which colour MP you have, sadly.
Firstly, glad everyone is okay - that's the main thing.
If you do wish to share the footage then it might be worth sending it to a YouTube guy called Ashley Neal. He's a driving instructor but very much pro-bikes so it might gain some much-needed publicity regarding idiot drivers.
I'm in no way connected with him but watch his YouTube stuff and I'm sure he'd be interested to watch and review the footage.
Club ride? Club insurance or affiliation to British cycling could help with chasing for the new bike etc from the driver, maybe more. If not, road.cc and near miss of the day.
No, read the posts before the last two and don't stick it on youtube or missoftheday until you've exhausted getting the police to do something about it.
I was rammed off my bike, then driver got out and gave me a good few punches. All witnessed by a passer by.
It went to court. The prosecution was for the assault afterwards. Apparently it didn't class as either dangerous driving or without due care and attention, and bar for attempted murder was too high to get a prosecution. Apparently we don't 'stack' crimes in UK - only most serious charge is brought forward.
He got a year inside due to a long list of previous convictions.
IANAL
This is where we need to crowd fund a private prosecution.
Or support the Cyclists Defence Fund.
For any lawyers on here - if these were prosecuted as assault, do sentencing rules allow the punishment to include points or a ban, or do "motoring" penalties only apply to "motoring" offences?
I suspect we'd be even more disappointed by the sentences if it went down the assault route, which is why we maybe need an offence of using a vehicle as a weapon and sentences based on the potential severity of the outcome.
But then proving intent becomes the legal issue.
Matt, that sounds horrific.
It does seem odd that vehicles have been weeded out for a separate set of crimes and their use as a weapon seems seldom prosecuted unless at murder level. Can you imagine a situation where the CPS said "ah, I know the victim was badly beaten but it was with a baseball bat and the crime does not really fit with the bat and ball act of 1972. Now if it had been a tree branch it would be a clear case, but as it was turned on a lathe into a baseball bat shape and the aggressor was standing in a batting stance it's strictly needs to be prosecuted user a different set of laws".
No, read the posts before the last two and don’t stick it on youtube or missoftheday until you’ve exhausted getting the police to do something about it.
Absolutely, police first - I'm not recommending anything to the contrary.
But should the OP wish to share, then the YouTube route might gain some traction.
I'm glad your clubmate is Ok. There's often a fine line between a WTF and calling an ambulance, I'm glad it fell to the former side this time
There’s a massive irony to a shed dragger being inconvenienced by another road user.
While this is clearly in jest, it's this sort of low level "othering" that starts the process of being able to feel like it's OK to ride over some-ones bike. Just for that moment, he wasn't doing anything to another human, he was just getting one in against "lycra louts" or what other newspaper headline had called someone to get some clicks. Everyone on the road should have respect for other road users. I think we should all try to be a little more Omigos, and a little less Ron Pickering
Ron Pickering
Who?
Who?
Even if the police don’t charge him, then claim for the damages. This will be a civil case so a lower degree of evidence is required but it will involve his insurance company which will lose him his no claims discount.
I'd be onto his insurers, with any luck they'll payout quickly based on the video.
Then with any luck they'll chase him for the full amount as policies don't cover you for illegal driving.
@nickc You make a good point. But in my defence, they started it! (again said in jest).
The important thing is the rider in question isn't in A&E or worse today.
Similar to the poster above, I once had a car and caravan beep, swear at me and a (small) group of other riders, then go on the wrong side of a width restriction and swing back onto the correct side of the road forcing me to brake or be side swiped by it.
I dislike dangerous driving and have no appreciation for caravans.
The important thing is the rider in question isn’t in A&E or worse today.
Yes, good point.
I’ve never understood the prosecutions brought in cases involving vehicles. In my head, based on the information in th op, there is alleged criminal damage, the vehicle has been used as a weapon to assault/attempt assault, in addition to dangerous driving. If the evidence supports the allegation why are drivers not charged with all of the offences committed?
Multiple factors, including:
- CPS lawyers are overworked/under-resourced and probably have to make a charging decision based on some summary information (unlikely they'll even view the footage).
- police are overworked/under-resourced and so it may be easier for them to write the summary report in a way which makes them less likely to end up in protracted discussions/investigations/lengthy-trials
- pragmatically a simple motoring charge is more likely to get a simple guilty plea, resolving the case quickly, avoiding witnesses going to court, removing risk of the whole case collapsing (see overworked/under-resourced for why that might happen)
- defence much more likely to plead not guilty to the assault/criminal damage charges and blame "misjudging" (no malicious intent so if the jury believe the charge falls) - and a trial likely to take at least until 2024 to conclude at the moment!
- cynically charging at a higher level may entitle people to legal aid and make it easier for the accused to challenge the claims
- higher charges almost certain to end up in front of a jury, who (in E&W) you would only have to convince 3 of them that they were not sure beyond reasonable doubt it was an accident and the assault/criminal damage elements fail. How certain would you be that if you selected 12 people at random that 10 of them would definitely convict?
- courts, cps, police all very busy - if you have limited resources is a quick win with a 60 year old bad driver with anger issues and no previous convictions a priority compared to the drug dealer up for his 10th offence, or the guy who beats his wife everytime his football team lose, or the school teacher who has is sharing seriously dodgy images online?
If you think those things sound like political rather than criminal justice problems there's 11 candidates for future prime minister who will all claim to be tough on crime, but I've not heard a single one suggest how they will resource the system, tackle the backlog etc. If you happen to be one of the niche who get to pick our next PM, do get in touch and ask them what they will do to fix this - rather than just bang the drum the judges are too soft (by following the sentencing guidelines) and lawyers are too tricky (by using the law set by parliament) and so we need tougher sentences and to leave the ECHR.
Well I did advise the rider and the guy that posted the video not to post to socials but it's found it's way on there and gone viral and is now part of road.cc's blog today
So judge for yourself. Yes I guess the confrontation could have been avoided but I initially posted as I was so shocked at what I saw.
Ooof, that's pretty conclusive. More worryingly, the rider was disturbingly close to going under the car too. Nice and clear video, too.
Can someone explain the rationale behind not posting on social media until a case is concluded?
I would understand if A) something was likely to go to a jury trial and B) the clip had gone so viral that they couldn't find a jury that hadn't seen it. But all of that seems incredibly unlikely. What am I missing? Tipping off the driver as to the evidence so he can 'amend' his statement accordingly?
Urgh, don't read the comments on the Facebook post (video is hosted by some cager bs FB page), it's piss-boiling.
I saw that earlier and wondered if it was the same incident. That is a horrible act of violence using a weapon that was close to hand. Nasty stuff.
Good job his cleats released smoothly or he would have gone under the wheels. I dont beliive the see you next tuesday driving would have known about those and the rider could have lost his legs.
simply incredible - in the Netherlands that would be jail time.
Good job his cleats released smoothly or he would have gone under the wheels.
My thoughts exactly.
Can someone explain the rationale behind not posting on social media until a case is concluded?
In this country the Police like to investigate and collect evidence without anyone's recollection - victim, suspect or witnesses - being influenced by anything. Recollections could be mistakenly influenced or altered based on what they see or read.
Similarly the CPS and judges expect the jurynto decide solely on the evidence presented in court, rather than what some bellend says on social media.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
I reckon the driver would get off with nothing if it wasn't for the horn beep at the start.
He'll claim the bike veered out into the road ( which he did slightly) and caused it( which he didn't)
Don't get me wrong, I think the caravaner is completely in the wrong, but I don't think the court/ genpop will
That is horrible. The worst the driver will get is the repair bill for his bumper.
The comments section is truly sickening. Not just stupid but maliciously so.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
No problem understanding this clear description. No-one could be arsed to tell me before. Thank you.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
No need for that mate, makes you seem like a bit of a tool.
I mean holy actual 💩 moly!
I know roadies usually (stereotyping) are in too much of a rush to wave to us mere mtbers.
Though very much show empathy to the guy nearly could have been soooooo much f worse.
Thank christ on a bike the bike took it only.
Healing vibes and positivity to all involved and this serves as a stark reminder to me when I next get a semi road read PAVEMENT off road ride in next.
Not directly related but I didn't know where else to share it...
https://twitter.com/cyclegaz/status/1545873934784102400
Neither video is a nice watch. The lorry collision made me feel queasy
Meanwhile.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62153644
Not defending the cyclist, not least for not stopping, but this is an accident, not a deliberate act.
We really are an underclass in many people's eyes, aren't we?
No problem understanding this clear description. No-one could be arsed to tell me before. Thank you.
Yeah sorry, my comment did make me come across as a tool.
Not defending the cyclist, not least for not stopping, but this is an accident, not a deliberate act.
I suppose it is an accident in that the cyclist didn't deliberately hit the woman but mounting the pavement to whizz round a corner and then hit a person on that pavement who you hadn't seen is 100% down to the cyclist riding in a very bad way.
Do you think a car driver doing the same in their car would get anything less?
Mounting the kerb then probably no but he didn't deliberately ride into her with intent, just made 'an error of judgement'
Whereas......
Overtaking where they can't see; community service and a ban
Couldn't see because of sun but carried on anyway - acquitted
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/20192780.henley-cyclist-killed-collision-sun-blinded-driver/
Do you think a car driver doing the same in their car would get anything less?
Yes.
https://www.darkerside.org/2013/10/helen-measures-and-the-death-of-denisa/
Did Denisa die because of Helen’s driving? Well, she was thrown 15 feet after an impact from a tonne of metal travelling at 50mph and died from severe head injuries. Tick.
Was Helen’s driving careless, even if only because of ‘momentary attention with no aggravating factors’ (quoting from sentencing guidelines)? Helen overtook on a bend, into a space she could not see to be clear, and did not stop when she saw that the space was not clear even though she said she could have done so. Apparently, this wasn’t careless or inconsiderate.
For the record, if the verdict had been the other way, it looks like the sentence would have been some kind of community order coupled with a temporary driving ban and some additional driver training
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514
A delivery driver has been cleared of causing the death of a four-year-old girl by dangerous driving.
Peter Williams, 62, knocked over Esmé Rose Weir in Cheshire in January 2016 as she rode a scooter on the pavement.
Mr Williams, of Poulton Road, Wallasey told the jury at Liverpool Crown Court that despite checking his mirrors he had not seen her as he mounted the pavement
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/somethings-very-seriously-wrong-here/
Sinden had been texting on his phone prior to the collision, and gave evidence at trial which not only disagreed with earlier statements to the police but which also contradicted other statements he made at the same trial. Many statements were mutually exclusive. Some were seemingly works of fantasy, such as the claim that objects falling onto his capacitive touchscreen phone from elsewhere in the van had somehow typed text messages. And basic time and space analysis of others showed them to be impossible, such as statements relating to his mobile phone use which, on consideration of the timestamps of the messages, were entirely incompatible with him having reached the collision site by the time of the collision.
I looked at this case in great depth shortly after Sinden was—to widespread astonishment—cleared of all charges.
Not defending the cyclist, not least for not stopping, but this is an accident, not a deliberate act.
The cyclist was absolutely as guilty as the drivers in the later examples, and I can only hope his sentence is considered the starting point for any motorist causing a death.
And as an aside I would recommend a nicer cycling route. I live close to Hurn and it is a 60mph narrowish two lane road (the pavement can legally be cycled on by the way) and I wouldn't be surprised if you were going to turn left and ride along the Avon Causeway (a narrow, twisty, undulating couple of miles) where your only purpose of riding along it would be to piss off as many car drivers as possible.
Yes, you are just as entitled to ride along those roads as the cars but do you want an enjoyable ride or one filled with hassle?
Yes.
And if you look I am sure you can see cases where cyclists were cleared too. The cyclist in this case was an idiot who was cycling dangerously and the fact he got done for that and some motorists get off does not change that. Yes the motorists should get sentences and that is where the frustration should be rather than presumably saying the cyclist should be charge free because
Yes, you are just as entitled to ride along those roads as the cars but do you want an enjoyable ride or one filled with hassle?
The problem is if we don't exercise our rights, some idiot will try and take them away from us.
Can anyone explain the rationale for this being so hard to understand?
Meh. Of course I can understand why there's the potential for issues. But if I was a victim I might still chose to post a clip up - I imagine posting something like that on social media would be extremely cathartic; you get a lot of attention, well-wishers and vindication.
Have you ever heard of a witness statement being discounted, or a jury that couldn't convict because they'd seen a bike vs car clip on Road.cc? Because if not, it seems like a load of disproportionate rules that inconvenience a victim.
My opinion might be swayed by the fact that I was in an almost identical collision where someone (aggrieved at my completely legal filtering) drove into me from behind, over my bike and then drove off. I didn't have footage, though. The police were ultimately useless, and the guy, presumably, still drives. So, as NWA famously sang (about biases towards car drivers), **** tha police.
Not posting on social media because it might be prejudicial or some other spurious reason given out by the cops or anyone else connected with the status quo is for the birds
The only reason the police have got remotely interested in prosecuting this type of crime over the last few years is due to an increase in dashcams (both on bikes and in cars) a sustained social media campaign by cyclists and finally realising that doing nothing will get them in more trouble. If it wasn't for an avalanche of incontravertable evidence then it would all be ignored like it has been for the last 40 years. What is amusing (if anything is here) is that dumpsters like the DM site give these vids airtime for clickbait but though the usual suspects in the comments section get our attention, the vast majority and various decision makers including those in business who are looking for the next profit segment also notice and it generates more headroom for a proper debate on lack of infrastructure.
Make a noise I say.
presumably saying the cyclist should be charge free because
Honestly fella, what a pile of bollocks. Which bit of 'not defending the cyclist....' did you miss?
No, he caused death by a careless / dangerous act, which caused the accident which led to a death, and he got a custodial sentence. Which is probably right.
Guardian article says that there are ca 400 pedestrian deaths on our roads every year, on average 2.5 of them are caused by cyclists.
Careless / dangerous act in a car......
There's about 1850 road deaths per year total. That include deaths where a careless / dangerous driver is also killed. There are about 180 drivers per year in total who get a custodial sentence for causing death by careless or dangerous driving. 1/10 if you discount the 'killed by self'
About 2 cyclists per week or 100 / year get killed by drivers. Are 10 drivers per year going to prison for killing cyclists? As they are usually pretty extreme cases and therefore likely to be reported or commented on here I doubt it.
That's the point - kill a cyclist and you are treated leniently compared to another driver or a pedestrian, it's as if we don't count.
Agree with that Winston. The not putting footage on social media in order to not prejudice a trial makes sense if the CPS, the judges and police did their job properly but they don't do they?
Short of taking matters into ones own hands, posting the footage on social media is the only recourse we have.
The only answer here is to prosecute without a jury. Any statistical analysis of past verdicts shows that the law does next to nothing when it comes to protecting cyclists and that jurors almost exclusively pass a verdict based entirely on their own self interest.
The whole concept of trial by jury is that we are judged by our peers. If the victim is someone on a bicycle who has been killed / injured by a dangerous driver and they are subsequently judged by another 12 drivers then they are not being judged by their peers are they?
What prejudices a trial more than uploading footage is the lazy language employed by the media (and the courts). "Cyclist hit by car" is a common fallacy. The cyclist was hit by a driver, (unless of course, the car was driving itself.)
OPs group was riding either side of the car. It's not wrong but I would have avoided the 'vanner by either sticking to the one side or behind.
Still, the driver needed to hold back as the bikes were all over and no way of knowing what was going where.
Have you ever heard of a witness statement being discounted, or a jury that couldn’t convict because they’d seen a bike vs car clip on Road.cc? Because if not, it seems like a load of disproportionate rules that inconvenience a victim.
You understand the principle applies to all potential criminal cases? That there are rules that traditional media have had to abide by and apply to users of social media as well?
This isn’t about cyclists or drivers. It's about trying for to ensure all sides get a fair trial. One day that principle might keep your innocent ass out of prison.
“Cyclist hit by car” is a common fallacy. The cyclist was hit by a driver
I know what your saying, but it's one of those annoyingly 'correct' phrases that omits a lot of details, not a fallacy, just a zero implied blame statement of fact...
You understand the principle applies to all potential criminal cases? That there are rules that traditional media have had to abide by and apply to users of social media as well?
Yes I'm just arguing that there's a proportionality argument - if posting it on social media makes very little difference to the police's 'case'*, but it makes you feel better AND as Winston says 'makes a noise', then it's more likely to do you, the victim, some benefit - kowtowing to police requests almost certainly won't.
*No doubt they've got four more detectives on it down at the crime lab - working in shifts.
It's not solely whether it actually prejudices a trial, it's whether it has the potential to. It might not even be the video itself, which is after all a factual document, but look at the comments on here and on the road.cc/FB post, those also have the potential. Or at the very least gives a cause for doubt that a lawyer could play on, and which might then cause the police / CPS to not pursue appropriately.
If we want evidential based hearings and action, then we should keep that in mind. If all we want is to post videos and rail against how bad it is, then post away.
The problem is not that this stuff will predjudice a trial. I imagine the Caravanner is going to get everything the law currently wants to throw at him - it's an open and shut case with that evidence.
The probably is that 99% of these collisions happen without dashcams. Caravanner probably thinks himself unlucky that he was the unlucky one to be caught on camera and he's got a point. The vast majority of these incidents go unpunished. So sharing these things around and making drivers fearful of being caught on camera is a very worthwhile endeavour IMO.
I'm with theotherjonv on this, besides there is nothing to stop you from presumably posting stuff on social media later on is there?
Well I did advise the rider and the guy that posted the video not to post to socials but it’s found it’s way on there and gone viral and is now part of road.cc’s blog today
Urgh.
Horrible all around. Horrible incident, horrible malicious driver, but also horrible road. I really hope the planned route for the day was mostly lovely and just had that little bit as an unavoidable nastiness. Otherwise, I'd be giving up road riding if it looked all like that - where's the pleasure? And that's before you add the likelihood of coming up against stressed moronic drivers. No ta.
This will be taken as victim blaming - whatever, bite me (and I'm not even sure the cyclist victim did it, just the camera bike maybe), but this is just the sort of slow section on an otherwise faster road that I never filter past cars that have previously overtaken me. It just seems to be poking a wasps next. I want drivers to be safe and courteous and choose the right moment to pass me well. But once they have done the right thing (and I appreciate they didn't in this case, with horn and close passing of the caravan) slipping past them at a slow patch on the road so they have to do it again just seems crass. If I slow up and don't filter past I'll be what, 20-40 yards further back down the road. That's my little time penalty for greasing the wheels and all road users getting along ok - a bit of ying and yang. Safely passing and then re-passing a cyclist is a ballache even as a cycling advocate and I can see how it could really rile people.
Nope, not in this case.
I cycle to work 2 or 3 days a week on a mix of narrow roads and bridleways and I'm full on mr nice guy pulling off the road for vehicles that come up behind me and wait patiently for me to find a farm gate or passing place. If there are vehicles coming towards me on the singletrack road and clearly slowing down then I will also try and get out of thier way - we are all probably going to work and all road users - I'm full of sunshine......
.....right up to when one of them pulls a dick move clearly on purpose like speeding up, banging on the horn, close passing me, swearing from the window etc etc. Then they forfit any right to the road whatsoever and i'll do whatever I need to do to make me feel better. Childish I know but otherwise I just simmer all day.
@convert - you make a good point. I also try to avoid antagonising folk and likely wouldn't have tried overtaking that driver given their previous manoeuvre. As you say, they're just going to come past you again if/when the traffic opens up.
but this is just the sort of slow section on an otherwise faster road that I never filter past cars that have previously overtaken me.
Likewise, it doesn't gain much and stops potential problems. However not in any way condoning or excusing this drivers actions.
I try to make a point when driving of NOT mgifing but instead sticking behind any cyclists for as long as needed until it is safe to pass and then passing wide and slow (30mph or less) in the (perhaps deluded) hope that other car drivers will copy me rather than the knobs who insist on close passing.