Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Couple of local stories of Bike v Vehicle

redveeredvee Posts: 11,922
edited June 2009 in Commuting chat
A policeman pushing a cyclist off his bike in Yate.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html

A Council van left-hooking a cyclist

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html.
I've added a signature to prove it is still possible.

Posts

  • vanquishedvanquished Posts: 66
    redvee wrote:
    A policeman pushing a cyclist off his bike in Yate.

    http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html

    The PC was found not guilty:
    http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html
    2008 carrera vanquish - FCN: 8
    2009 giant bowery 72 - FCN: 5
  • el_presidenteel_presidente Posts: 1,963
    Copper's defence: "I believed the cyclist was a brazilian electrician, m'lud" "No further questions, case closed"
    <a>road</a>
  • Very dubious of this whole story, but the chances of a PC being found guilty when there are no independant witnesses and the injured party isn't that sure what happened is roughly zero.

    Two points stand out though.
    1. The cyclist said he hit the central reservation, the PC said he went to his left and hit the kerb.
    2. What authority did the PC have for holding up his hand to stop the cyclist? Given that he was working on his second job at the time, was not in uniform and not on duty.
    time flies like an arrow
    fruit flies like a banana
  • FeltupFeltup Posts: 1,340
    So the cyclist said he didn't feel a hand push him but insists he was pushed? I actually think in this case it sounds like the right result as the evidence from the cyclist doesn't sound that convincing.
    Short hairy legged roadie FCN 4 or 5 in my baggies.

    Felt F55 - 2007
    Specialized Singlecross - 2008
    Marin Rift Zone - 1998
    Peugeot Tourmalet - 1983 - taken more hits than Mohammed Ali
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Feltup wrote:
    So the cyclist said he didn't feel a hand push him but insists he was pushed? I actually think in this case it sounds like the right result as the evidence from the cyclist doesn't sound that convincing.
    Possibly. However, the driver suggests that the cyclist was close enough to bend his wing mirror, which means he was too close to him in the first instance. Then he stops and get out of the vehicle. What possible reason would he have for doing this? He also admitted that the cyclist had to accelerate to get around him. Okay, so the acceleration is almost certainly a fiction, but if you stop your vehicle, jump out and deliberately step into the path of the cyclist, causing the cyclist to fall, aren't you guilty of something?

    The jury appear to have assumed that the experienced cyclist chose that moment to sponteneously fall off.

    I think that perhaps there was no option but to acquit here - was this a criminal charge? If so, I wonder if the cyclist is going to sue personally.
  • Eau RougeEau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    . Okay, so the acceleration is almost certainly a fiction, but if you stop your vehicle, jump out and deliberately step into the path of the cyclist, causing the cyclist to fall, aren't you guilty of something?

    Probably, but he was on trial for pushing the cyclist off the bike, not anything else. That was because the cyclist's story all along was that he was pushed, right up until the point the was cross-examined and then suddenly admits he actually didn't feel the push.
    I bet that came as a bit of a shock to the prosecution. When you only witness admits they don't actually know if the illegal thing happened or not, you tend not to win

    Still, all beacuse the driver didn't give him enough room he, a copper, gets arrested, questioned. charged and has to appear in court to try and defend his name. It's not eaxctly the sort of thing the Police look for when looking for a good officer.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Eau Rouge wrote:
    . Okay, so the acceleration is almost certainly a fiction, but if you stop your vehicle, jump out and deliberately step into the path of the cyclist, causing the cyclist to fall, aren't you guilty of something?

    Probably, but he was on trial for pushing the cyclist off the bike, not anything else. That was because the cyclist's story all along was that he was pushed, right up until the point the was cross-examined and then suddenly admits he actually didn't feel the push.
    I bet that came as a bit of a shock to the prosecution. When you only witness admits they don't actually know if the illegal thing happened or not, you tend not to win

    Still, all beacuse the driver didn't give him enough room he, a copper, gets arrested, questioned. charged and has to appear in court to try and defend his name. It's not eaxctly the sort of thing the Police look for when looking for a good officer.
    That was my guess - the civil courts have a "balance of probabilities" test, don't they? I hope he tries there, since the policeman has pretty effectively provided all the required evidence that he was guilty of road rage, albeit the original charges seem to have been a bit optomistic.
  • Eau RougeEau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    Eau Rouge wrote:
    . Okay, so the acceleration is almost certainly a fiction, but if you stop your vehicle, jump out and deliberately step into the path of the cyclist, causing the cyclist to fall, aren't you guilty of something?

    Probably, but he was on trial for pushing the cyclist off the bike, not anything else. That was because the cyclist's story all along was that he was pushed, right up until the point the was cross-examined and then suddenly admits he actually didn't feel the push.
    I bet that came as a bit of a shock to the prosecution. When you only witness admits they don't actually know if the illegal thing happened or not, you tend not to win

    Still, all beacuse the driver didn't give him enough room he, a copper, gets arrested, questioned. charged and has to appear in court to try and defend his name. It's not eaxctly the sort of thing the Police look for when looking for a good officer.
    That was my guess - the civil courts have a "balance of probabilities" test, don't they? I hope he tries there, since the policeman has pretty effectively provided all the required evidence that he was guilty of road rage, albeit the original charges seem to have been a bit optomistic.

    He's shown what could be seen as intimidating behaviour, but nothing actually illegal or violent. No swearing, no physical contact, just a stated desire to talk, followed by (really really badly executed but seemingly well intentioned) help after the crash. Without verbal or physical assault I don't see the cyclist getting anywhere. If he really wants money from the copper, he's be far better looking at sueing him for making his injuries worse by moving him.

    The criminal charge is optomistic when your only witness can't state for certain he was pushed, but up to the cross-examination, that had been exactly what the cyclists had been saying, that he was pushed. He's probably still saying he was pushed (he probably was pushed) and if the jury believed he was pushed, the criminal charge would stick and the copper would probably have been found guilty.
  • ceecee Posts: 4,553
    I like a post with a lot of probably in it :wink:
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
Sign In or Register to comment.