Another rant!!!!

Rich158

Following my accident in August I've just received the following reply from Kent Police in repsonse to my complaints regarding their lack of action.

'The officer who attended the accident has informed us that the driver stated he looked but could not see you, due to the low sun shining right into his face. The Officer, Pc XXXXXX agreed that it would have been very difficult to see you approaching.

There are no independant witnesses to the incident and given the poor visibility due to the sunlight, the Officer decided to take no further action with regard to any driving offences.'

Poor visibility due to sunlight, that's a new one on me :shock: Am I being unreasonable in thinking that this response and the inaction on the part of the police is wholly inadequate? After all the guy was turning right across my path when he hit me :shock:

I'm tempted to take this further, but am conscious I may just be making more of it than I should because I was the injured party and the driver walks away scott free. To say I'm bloody angry is an understatement

OldSkoolKona

Typical police attitude - anti cyclists, takes side of moton.

I'm angry for you Rich :evil:

iclestu

hang on.......

I may have missed the background to this.......

Someone collided with you when you had right of way. This was witnessed by a police officer who took no action. You make a formal complaint and the formal response is 'doesnt matter who has right of way if the sun is low in the sky' and your left wondering whether you are making to big deal a out of it!!!??? :shock:

what's the world comming to?

Aidy

I'm sorry, but the driver should have been aware that his/her vision was impaired, and driven accordingly.

Not being aware of your surroundings is unacceptable. And completely justifiable as dangerous driving. (Normal I am not a lawyer applies).

Complain more. Make more noise.
Personally I'd start writing to newspapers at this stage.

always_tyred

Rich, the driver has admitted the fault implicitly in their statement. The policeman is too stupid to see that this is essentially an acknowledgement of a failure to drive with due care. They were stationary and, although having insufficient visibility, they pulled out into a road.

Having see the state of you after the accident, I would very much encourage you to press on with this and in my view you are not over reacting at all. Had the driver pulled out in front of another car, would this be their attitude? You may need some help from the likes of the CTC. I would guess that they encounter this sort of thing a lot.

In the mean time, given that kind of statement from the driver, you also have the option to taken them to court as a civil matter - perhaps negligence? I'm not sure but there is plenty of advice to be had.

downfader

Whats going to happen when this guy hits a kiddie on a zebra crossing I wonder, will the Police let him off for that too?

I agree, complain. The officer in my accident investigation said the same thing, I said to him its nonsense, its a get-out-of-jail free card and the driver should have covered his brow, wound down his window and driven to the conditions.

Like you I had right of way, I persisted and the officer saw my point. The driver in my situation went on a retraining course at my request.

Good luck!

Coriander

I think Kent Police are in the wrong here and you've a right to feel aggrieved.

Complain again, this time complain to the Chief Constable.

I'd say a prosecution is unlikely, but I would like to hear the Police being a little more on your side and not making apologies for the driver. My understanding is that if the driver was aware he couldn't see clearly, he shouldn't have made the manoeuvre or should have made it at a much slower speed. To do otherwise is careless driving, surely?

Rich158

Cheers guys, I did begin to wonder whether I was just making too much out of it, but yes you're right. The fact that the police officer, actually said it would have been difficult to see me, therefore it's ok to turn across my path hitting me in the process beggars belief.

tbh however i'm not sure how to take this further other than sending a copy of the letter to my solicitor (who has previous knowledge of Kent police and their record of failing to prosecute and favouring the motorist), and then on to CTC and BC.

I think it may be time to let things lie otherwise I'm in danger in turning into a bitter twisted old cyclist I'd much rather put everything behind me and enjoy being on a bike again when I can train properly

Airbornerodent

Aidy is surely completely right.

If the road had have been icy, you would expect that the driver would have driven to the conditions, why not if the Sun reduced vision?

Yesterday, as I drove up to a garden where my daughter was playing, the sun was low and really reduced my vision - I slowed down to almost a standstill. If the sun's in your eyes, surely that's the thing to do, not make manoeuvres whilst you can't see where you're going. After all, people who can't see aren't allowed to drive.....

Wrong decision made by the police....

always_tyred

Coriander wrote:

I think Kent Police are in the wrong here and you've a right to feel aggrieved.

Complain again, this time complain to the Chief Constable.

I'd say a prosecution is unlikely, but I would like to hear the Police being a little more on your side and not making apologies for the driver. My understanding is that if the driver was aware he couldn't see clearly, he shouldn't have made the manoeuvre or should have made it at a much slower speed. To do otherwise is careless driving, surely?

I agree with everything except that bit. If you can't see where you are going, you can't see and you shouldn't start going.

After all, how many cars do you see driven extremely slowly by blind people?

It is, of course, a nonsense in any event. It may have been "more difficult to see" but it would have been possible to see given sufficient patience and effort. For that reason, I think a zero tolerance attitude is appropriate. Its not as though the driver came around a corner and was momentarily blinded, they were momentarily blinded whilst stationary and merely failed to wait long enough for their eyes to adjust before pulling forward.

Anyway, the police turn job applicants down if they are too intelligent, so bear that in mind.

Coriander

Always Tyred wrote:

Coriander wrote:

I think Kent Police are in the wrong here and you've a right to feel aggrieved.

Complain again, this time complain to the Chief Constable.

I'd say a prosecution is unlikely, but I would like to hear the Police being a little more on your side and not making apologies for the driver. My understanding is that if the driver was aware he couldn't see clearly, he shouldn't have made the manoeuvre or should have made it at a much slower speed. To do otherwise is careless driving, surely?

I agree with everything except that bit. If you can't see where you are going, you can't see.

After all, how many cars do you see driven extremely slowly by blind people?

It is, of course, a nonsense in any event. It may have been "more difficult to see" but it would have been possible to see given sufficient patience and effort. For that reason, I think a zero tolerance attitude is appropriate. Its not as though the driver came around a corner and was momentarily blinded, they were momentarily blinded whilst stationary and merely failed to wait long enough for their eyes to adjust before pulling forward.

Anyway, the police turn job applicants down if they are too intelligent, so bear that in mind.

Please tell me that's not true.

downfader

Rich158 wrote:

I think it may be time to let things lie otherwise I'm in danger in turning into a bitter twisted old cyclist I'd much rather put everything behind me and enjoy being on a bike again when I can train properly

If we all did that there would be no more cyclists. Drivers already get away with all kinds of nonsense, not that I'm trying to push you into this but I do think you'd get some good advice if you ask the CTC or BC.

I dont know the grievance proceedure but do know the IPCC will often take on cases where the Police have failed to act and encourage them to revisit possible measures.

suzyb

I I'm one of those drivers who has trouble due to the sunlight shining in their face as in the winter it shines below the level of the visor. Which is exactly why I have sunglasses and an extended see through visor.

Sorry but not being able to see is no excuse. You should be able to see where the f*** your going at 30, 40, 60 mph because anything from a small animal to a small child could appear in front of you.

ETA You even get warned in the traffic report during the winter about the low sun ffs

doog442

Coriander wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Coriander wrote:

I think Kent Police are in the wrong here and you've a right to feel aggrieved.

Complain again, this time complain to the Chief Constable.

I'd say a prosecution is unlikely, but I would like to hear the Police being a little more on your side and not making apologies for the driver. My understanding is that if the driver was aware he couldn't see clearly, he shouldn't have made the manoeuvre or should have made it at a much slower speed. To do otherwise is careless driving, surely?

I agree with everything except that bit. If you can't see where you are going, you can't see.

After all, how many cars do you see driven extremely slowly by blind people?

It is, of course, a nonsense in any event. It may have been "more difficult to see" but it would have been possible to see given sufficient patience and effort. For that reason, I think a zero tolerance attitude is appropriate. Its not as though the driver came around a corner and was momentarily blinded, they were momentarily blinded whilst stationary and merely failed to wait long enough for their eyes to adjust before pulling forward.

Anyway, the police turn job applicants down if they are too intelligent, so bear that in mind.

Please tell me that's not true.

do you believe everything you read :?:

downfader

Coriander wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Coriander wrote:

I think Kent Police are in the wrong here and you've a right to feel aggrieved.

Complain again, this time complain to the Chief Constable.

I'd say a prosecution is unlikely, but I would like to hear the Police being a little more on your side and not making apologies for the driver. My understanding is that if the driver was aware he couldn't see clearly, he shouldn't have made the manoeuvre or should have made it at a much slower speed. To do otherwise is careless driving, surely?

I agree with everything except that bit. If you can't see where you are going, you can't see.

After all, how many cars do you see driven extremely slowly by blind people?

It is, of course, a nonsense in any event. It may have been "more difficult to see" but it would have been possible to see given sufficient patience and effort. For that reason, I think a zero tolerance attitude is appropriate. Its not as though the driver came around a corner and was momentarily blinded, they were momentarily blinded whilst stationary and merely failed to wait long enough for their eyes to adjust before pulling forward.

Anyway, the police turn job applicants down if they are too intelligent, so bear that in mind.

Please tell me that's not true.

I know two PhD graduates who wanted to be Special Constables. Both martial artists, calm and intelligent, physically fit and young enough to be able to keep up with change. Both were rejected. To me they sounded ideal for the Specials.

always_tyred

Coriander wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Coriander wrote:

I think Kent Police are in the wrong here and you've a right to feel aggrieved.

Complain again, this time complain to the Chief Constable.

I'd say a prosecution is unlikely, but I would like to hear the Police being a little more on your side and not making apologies for the driver. My understanding is that if the driver was aware he couldn't see clearly, he shouldn't have made the manoeuvre or should have made it at a much slower speed. To do otherwise is careless driving, surely?

I agree with everything except that bit. If you can't see where you are going, you can't see.

After all, how many cars do you see driven extremely slowly by blind people?

It is, of course, a nonsense in any event. It may have been "more difficult to see" but it would have been possible to see given sufficient patience and effort. For that reason, I think a zero tolerance attitude is appropriate. Its not as though the driver came around a corner and was momentarily blinded, they were momentarily blinded whilst stationary and merely failed to wait long enough for their eyes to adjust before pulling forward.

Anyway, the police turn job applicants down if they are too intelligent, so bear that in mind.

Please tell me that's not true.

I never lie. Or exaggerate.

Honestly - its a fairly well known tale I heard in Canada (on CBC no less, from the person so rejected.... can't remember why they were on the radio... anyway...). I have no idea if its true here, but it is certainly consistent with all of the evidence I've encontered.

supersonic

This may be of interest:

http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/Cyc ... 4252841.jp

doog442

-null- wrote:

I I'm one of those drivers who has trouble due to the sunlight shining in their face as in the winter it shines below the level of the visor. Which is exactly why I have sunglasses and an extended see through visor.

Sorry but not being able to see is no excuse. You should be able to see where the f*** your going at 30, 40, 60 mph because anything from a small animal to a small child could appear in front of you.

ETA You even get warned in the traffic report during the winter about the low sun ffs[/quote


sensible post warning

my commute is West to East AM

its highly dodgy there and back...nice weather, tired morning eyes and misty/ frozen windscreens are a mare

Coriander

downfader wrote:

Rich158 wrote:

I think it may be time to let things lie otherwise I'm in danger in turning into a bitter twisted old cyclist I'd much rather put everything behind me and enjoy being on a bike again when I can train properly

If we all did that there would be no more cyclists. Drivers already get away with all kinds of nonsense, not that I'm trying to push you into this but I do think you'd get some good advice if you ask the CTC or BC.

I dont know the grievance proceedure but do know the IPCC will often take on cases where the Police have failed to act and encourage them to revisit possible measures.

I think one more letter should be tried to, as I said, the Chielf Constable. Ascertain from your solicitor what the offence of manoeuvring when you can't see clearly is and then suggest in your letter that you'd at least expect a charge of <whatever your solicitor advises you it is> to be considered and that you don't expect the police to act as apologists for drivers who are quite clearly driving when they know they can't see the road clearly.

CdrJake

Three words. Police Complaints Commission!

A few years ago I was involved in an incident where my car was rear ended in London and witnessed by a police officer, I was left with whiplash and off work for three weeks. The driver of the offending car claimed that my rear lights were not working (they weren't after he hit me!) and that he could not have slowed down in time. The police officer backed up the story of the driver.

I made a complaint to the Metropolitian Police which was rejected regarding the officer, not least his total lack of respect and refusal to call an ambulance even though I had neck pain. The Met Police rejected the complaint stating there was no evidence the officer had showed lack of respect and that the officer had every right to refuse to phone an ambulance if he believed I was essentially 'making it up'

I took the complain further to the PCC on the grounds that a police officer does not have the right to refuse calling medical help on the grounds of what he may think is a lie. The PCC upheld my claim. I wasn't out to claim any kind of compensation it was more to make a point that there are some things you just cannot get away with.

Being in a neckbrace for three weeks is no party, believe me!

shoulder_of_orion

I'm angry for you too. I would not let it drop if I were you.

Are you a member of BC, CTC or LCC or another cycling org? They should definitely help.

In addition to that I would write to:

1) Your MP - mine worked wonders for me in a serious matter I was involved in earlier in the year

2) The PCC as CdrJake says they can be very effective. At the very least it will keep the officers involved honest.

3) The chief constable (CC him in to the PCC letter)

4) Your local paper and/or the local paper of the vicinity of the accident. They may want to run a human interest and/or road safety story. They may want to include that picture. Again that will increase the pressure on those involved.

You could also think about finding a no win - no fee type solicitor who may be willing to take on your case.

Don't let it consume your life. If it all leads to nothing, then pursue the insurance claim and move on. But I would want to feel that I had done everything possible to get justice done.

cjcp

http://kateauchterlonie.blogspot.com/

shouldbeinbed

Rich I can understand not wanting to become a bitter twisted cyclist, but this cop needs to have some basic common sense hammered into him or he'll be letting killer motorists on their way with a cheery wave after they've mounted the kerb and run over a bus stop full of kids because of a bit of gare off a wet road.

you could write back to the cops and ask what their own driver training advises their own officers to do in low sun conditions?

Might also be an idea to write to the Chair of the Police Authority. (in effect the Chief Constables line manager) cc it to the local paper for an added laxitive effect. They have to take complaints seriously and there's all sorts get onto that body, there may be a cyclist or two with the oomph to make the chief constable listen to a complaint of negligence.

supersonic

Thing is, similar cases often do not lead to any prosecution. The above one does, but many don't. If I am right in thinking, the car was waiting to turn right and drove straight into the OP? I guess the quesion is, what should have been the course of action from the driver?

shoulder_of_orion

supersonic wrote:

Thing is, similar cases often do not lead to any prosecution. The above one does, but many don't. If I am right in thinking, the car was waiting to turn right and drove straight into the OP? I guess the quesion is, what should have been the course of action from the driver?

I dunno, maybe applying the brakes when he/she knew their vision to be impaired? Not maneuvering when they could not see properly?

I cannot recall the exact circumstances of the incident (and I think Rich has no memory either) but I think Rich said in his original description of what he thought had happened that the driver hit him from behind? And/or cut across him from the side?

That there were no witnesses is unfortunate for sure.

supersonic

I shall have to read the original: I was under the impression the driver was stationary indicating right, then pulled out infront of Rich who was in the opposite lane.

shoulder_of_orion

Supersonic, I've saved you the bother:

Rich158 wrote:

It's rant time :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I've just had a letter from Kent police informing me nobody will be prosecuted over my incident. Given that the diagram they showed me had the people carrier turning right across 3 carriageways into my path I find this unbelievable. Evidently it's now fine to turn right against the flow of traffic, knock a cyclist into next, leaving him with multiple lacerations, a possible dislocated shoulder, amnesia, missing teeth and potential long term shoulder problems.

What about my right to ride along a road without being knocked senseless :shock: :shock: :shock: fecking wankers, if it was another car he'd hit I bet the arsehole would have been prosecuted

That's it. my ire is vented, for now, just don't ask me about this again.

sorry rich, I'm bringing it up again. By the sounds of that it seems to me that Rich might have a case but I'm no lawyer (alright maybe a barrack room lawyer).

Basically my view is that the driver shouldn't have turned at all if they could not see properly.

shoulder_of_orion

also doesn't sound like they were stationary to start off with.

and

even if they were, should they pull out when they cannot see?

Supersonic, when you say "waiting" I assume you mean stopped/stationary?

not sure what Rich means by "against the flow of traffic" but it doesn't sound good...?

Specialized Needs

SoL & supersonic: if I understand Rich's explanation correctly, the driver turned right, from a central refuge/filter lane, across the main road (with Rich coming the other way) into a side turning (leading only into the local dump - or what could be seen as a conveniently large side road entrance maybe to execute a U turn). If the driver was not local, there is no reason for them to be turning into the dump (and it also would bring into question why they turned onto the B262 in the first place).

The area has undergone some redevelopment since the satellite photo, but if I understood Rich's earlier explanation he was cycling along the B262 West to East (left to right), and the car had just come off the roundabout and decided to turn into the opening for the dump in the middle of this Google map - you can see that it is a nice, wide opening.

Rich: I would suggest the IPCC, as others have said. If they can't help, then they should signpost you to the correct process (might be worth prompting them to do this). It may be that your complaint is with them prematurely, but they should then outline the process for you. I presume you will have assistance to pursue a civil claim in parallel anyhow (don't delay one whilst pursuing the other)? If it crops up, be careful to distinguish between the issues in the civil claim (the result of the actions of the driver) and your complaint about the police: that they appear to have been wholly unreasonable in their* decision not to take this further. Otherwise the IPCC may claim that any civil action could provide suitable redress, and that they don't need to intervene.

Copying in your MP may be worthwhile. If you later decide to take it further, the fact that you have raised it with your MP at an early stage may be pertinent (whether or not the MP takes it further at this stage). Keep copies of all correspondence and replies. Chase after 4 weeks (at the latest) if there has been no response or acknowledgement.

As I mentioned in your earlier thread, CTC are taking a close interest in SMIDSY incidents. You might wish to contact them (member, or not - this kind of issue will affect all of us). They have recently launched a website: http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/. I haven't looked at the site in detail, but they say there is advice for victims there, too.

If nothing else, the CTC or similar may provide a support system for you. Pursuing a complaint can be a gruelling process. It can also be difficult to maintain a reasonable perspective. It is all too easy for 'the system' to grind you down. That does not make you a bitter twisted cyclist. In fact, that you are aware of this possibility suggests to me that you are not being bitter and twisted.

I must declare an interest and make it clear that I cycle in NW Kent and would hope for a more reasonable approach by the local police force than you have reported.

* I don't know the law in this area, but I thought such a decision should be made by the CPS. Based on your account, the Police have denied the CPS this opportunity. I may, however, be wrong.

supersonic

Shoulder of Lamb wrote:

also doesn't sound like they were stationary to start off with.

and

even if they were, should they pull out when they cannot see?

Supersonic, when you say "waiting" I assume you mean stopped/stationary?

not sure what Rich means by "against the flow of traffic" but it doesn't sound good...?

I know I would be pretty upset if hit in this way!

The pull out whilst cannot see is an interesting scenario. Does the driver wait untill the sun sets?

Rich158

Cheers duncedunce, that's a fair summary of the accident. I have now been able to ascertain the motorist clipped my front wheel, and I bounced off the side of his car. Although this is purely from the nature of my injuries and the damage to my bike, but at least seems the most probable explanation. I now count myself ectremely lucky, another 30cm and he'd have hit my leg and left me with potentially life altering injuries. It wasn't as if I wasn't visible, I have a red and yellow top on, with a white helmet, and a bag covered in reflective stripes, it was 7pm mid August, so very light although the sun was going down. How can you not see a brightly coloured cyclist in broad daylight is beyond belief.

On the driving note, I did a speed awareness course earlier this year, I know :shock: slapped wrists But the main emphasis was on judging the road conditions, and speed control. Essentially you should never drive faster than the distance you need to stop should something unexpected happen. Therefore if you visibility is reduced to virtually zero you should be travelling at a speed that would enable you to stop if the unexpected happened, ie less than 5mph, untill you can see the road clearly again. This was from an instructor who took drivers for the institute of advanced motoring, advised the police etc.

I've now decided the letter will go to CTC and British Cycling, my solicitor will get a copy just in case she want's to take it further. I know she has previous form with Kent police and their reluctance to prosecute motorists so may do something, even though it's not in her remit. The Chief constable will be getting a letter, which will be copied in to my MP.

What really galls is the reluctance to investigate properly, it seems that they're happy the officer had a quick look at the scene and agreed it would have been difficult to see a cyclist so therefore it's ok to turn and hit them.