Pressing Charges

_Brun_

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

...
Any adult cyclist that "needs" to pavement ride or RLJ should either MTFU, go on a cycling proficiency course or not cycle at all, there's no need and no excuse.

That's very principled of you, but I am curious why you hold a harder line on pavement riding than the police, who presumably are looking at it from a broader perspective?

Eh? Surely the police position is that it's illegal? It's not a case of principle though, it's a case of not being a tw@t. Local councils offer free cycle training, so if you're too scared to cycle on the road then go on a course or buy cyclecraft - basically do something constructive. It's not hard.

Surprisingly:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

and

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Source

snailracer

Drat it, _Brun_, you beat me to it!
I was about to relish smiting Il Principe with the mighty Home Office pavement-cycling double-hammer :P

il_principe

Well as I said "Adult cyclists." The HO basically suggests that children and young adults can pavement ride with impunity, but adults shouldn't really do it. At the end of the day the roads are pretty safe if you ride responsibly. In my mind there's precious little reason for an adult to be pavement riding, even in busy cities like London.

Simple as that really. You bought up the legal issue not me, that was never part of my argument!

snailracer

Il Principe wrote:

Well as I said "Adult cyclists." The HO basically suggests that children and young adults can pavement ride with impunity, but adults shouldn't really do it. At the end of the day the roads are pretty safe if you ride responsibly. In my mind there's precious little reason for an adult to be pavement riding, even in busy cities like London.

Simple as that really. You bought up the legal issue not me, that was never part of my argument!

Pavement cycling doesn't make much sense in London, traffic is slow and accustomed to the presence of bikes, plus there are lots of peds and street furniture, so I don't do it.

In the country, I used to cycle on the pavement along a busy A-road. I would encounter about 2-3 peds (it was 4 miles to the nearest other village, so most peds didn't bother), perhaps 4 bikes, dozens of foxes PER YEAR. By pavement cycling, I would avoid holding up (or being buzzed past at 50mph) perhaps 40-50 cars PER DAY, on an unlit road with a 60mph limit. In this environment, I would say that any reasonable person would cycle on the pavement. I guess that's why I questioned your absolutist opinion about pavement cycling, and why the police are empowered to use their discretion.

Lazarus

Rich158 wrote:

Yep, in my case the excuse for the guy turning right across my path and hitting me was that the sun was in his eyes and it would have been difficult for him to see what was coming.

This was the excuse given by the driver who first knocked me over a few years ago and the police sent her a warning letter and closed the case, though I sued the arse off her. :evil:

In June i was knocked over by yet another driver turning right and it resulted in me doing a somersault over the car, Initially the police told me they were going to send him a warning letter and close the case but they told me he accepted full responsibly and i took that as " we aren't doing anymore, you go get him " so i sued the arse off him :evil:

Then things took an interesting turn when they discovered he didn't have any insurance and then they went after him, and only today i have received a letter informing me that for knocking me over he has received a warning letter :roll: but for the offence of driving without insurance he has received fines totalling £625 and disqualified from driving for 2 months and points on his licence.

Kinda unbalanced i know but at least they finally pinned something on one of the steel cage daydreamers.

il_principe

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Well as I said "Adult cyclists." The HO basically suggests that children and young adults can pavement ride with impunity, but adults shouldn't really do it. At the end of the day the roads are pretty safe if you ride responsibly. In my mind there's precious little reason for an adult to be pavement riding, even in busy cities like London.

Simple as that really. You bought up the legal issue not me, that was never part of my argument!

Pavement cycling doesn't make much sense in London, traffic is slow and accustomed to the presence of bikes, plus there are lots of peds and street furniture, so I don't do it.

In the country, I used to cycle on the pavement along a busy A-road. I would encounter about 2-3 peds (it was 4 miles to the nearest other village, so most peds didn't bother), perhaps 4 bikes, dozens of foxes PER YEAR. By pavement cycling, I would avoid holding up (or being buzzed past at 50mph) perhaps 40-50 cars PER DAY, on an unlit road with a 60mph limit. In this environment, I would say that any reasonable person would cycle on the pavement. I guess that's why I questioned your absolutist opinion about pavement cycling, and why the police are empowered to use their discretion.

Suit yourself, most road cyclists I know would use the pavement extremely rarely, and I bet pretty much all of them would cycle on the road in the situation you describe. I quite often cycle in the Kent, Surrey and Sussex countryside and have never seen any reason to use pavements when there's a perfectly good road, even if the road is busy. As long as your visible it shouldn't be a problem. In some ways I think A roads are safer as there is much more room, I've had for more 'close calls' in narrow country lanes than I have on A roads.

gabriel959

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Well as I said "Adult cyclists." The HO basically suggests that children and young adults can pavement ride with impunity, but adults shouldn't really do it. At the end of the day the roads are pretty safe if you ride responsibly. In my mind there's precious little reason for an adult to be pavement riding, even in busy cities like London.

Simple as that really. You bought up the legal issue not me, that was never part of my argument!

Pavement cycling doesn't make much sense in London, traffic is slow and accustomed to the presence of bikes, plus there are lots of peds and street furniture, so I don't do it.

In the country, I used to cycle on the pavement along a busy A-road. I would encounter about 2-3 peds (it was 4 miles to the nearest other village, so most peds didn't bother), perhaps 4 bikes, dozens of foxes PER YEAR. By pavement cycling, I would avoid holding up (or being buzzed past at 50mph) perhaps 40-50 cars PER DAY, on an unlit road with a 60mph limit. In this environment, I would say that any reasonable person would cycle on the pavement. I guess that's why I questioned your absolutist opinion about pavement cycling, and why the police are empowered to use their discretion.

Suit yourself, most road cyclists I know would use the pavement extremely rarely, and I bet pretty much all of them would cycle on the road in the situation you describe. I quite often cycle in the Kent, Surrey and Sussex countryside and have never seen any reason to use pavements when there's a perfectly good road, even if the road is busy. As long as your visible it shouldn't be a problem. In some ways I think A roads are safer as there is much more room, I've had for more 'close calls' in narrow country lanes than I have on A roads.

You are right. I do actually ride my road bike next to a cycle path (not very well maintained) that has got a 60mph speed limit on my way back from work – it is only about 2-3 miles though.

I would never cycle on the pavement and I do ride occasionally on cycle paths as they are usually quite good in Cambridge and some of them are almost deserted!

spen666

_Brun_ wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

...
Any adult cyclist that "needs" to pavement ride or RLJ should either MTFU, go on a cycling proficiency course or not cycle at all, there's no need and no excuse.

That's very principled of you, but I am curious why you hold a harder line on pavement riding than the police, who presumably are looking at it from a broader perspective?

Eh? Surely the police position is that it's illegal? It's not a case of principle though, it's a case of not being a tw@t. Local councils offer free cycle training, so if you're too scared to cycle on the road then go on a course or buy cyclecraft - basically do something constructive. It's not hard.

Surprisingly:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

and

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Source

Brun - what you have quoted there is actuially nothing to do with the legality of cycling on the pavement. The law is clear. It is illegal to cycle on the footpath.


What you are quoting there is guidance given to police/ public re the use of one particular method of enforcement of the law. The FPN is only one disposal. The police can still summonse someone to court for an offence rather than give a FPN

Additionally, the wording of a minister ( in this case Paul Boateng) CANNOT overturn parliamentary legislation and as such is not really worth the paper it was printed on. The law still remains that cycling on the pavement is illegal.


Whether such a law is enforced is a different matter to whether such a law exists.

spen666

snailracer wrote:

...
I never said there couldn't be both. It's just that criminal proceedings are in the hands of the police, Headhuunter can't "pursue" it himself, whereas he can pursue the civil case.

Tha I am afraid is complete nonsense.

There is absolutely no reason why Headhunter cannot bring a criminal case himself. There is absolutely no need for the involvement of the police. Everyone has the right to commence a private prosecution.

So, i'm not sure where you have this myth from, but it is simply wrong.


Is it easy or advisable to bring a private prosecution? now that is a different matter, but is no harder than to bring a civil claim, and to actually institute proceedings is actually easier

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

...
I never said there couldn't be both. It's just that criminal proceedings are in the hands of the police, Headhuunter can't "pursue" it himself, whereas he can pursue the civil case.

Tha I am afraid is complete nonsense.

There is absolutely no reason why Headhunter cannot bring a criminal case himself. There is absolutely no need for the involvement of the police. Everyone has the right to commence a private prosecution.

So, i'm not sure where you have this myth from, but it is simply wrong.


Is it easy or advisable to bring a private prosecution? now that is a different matter, but is no harder than to bring a civil claim, and to actually institute proceedings is actually easier

Other than the stress and expense of bringing a criminal prosecutio AND a civil prosecution, there is absolutely no barrier against so doing.

Other than the fact that almost no one brings a criminal prosecution privately, pays taxes and reasonably expects those taxes to have the vast state legal system to enforce the laws of the land on their behalf, it is completely and utterly baffling where anyone might have got the impression that they can't bring a criminal prosecution themselves. :roll:

Spen, you aren't client facing, are you? This sort of thing is like me as a chemist saying, "I just can't believe how few people know that there are seven crystalline phases of ice".

Come on now.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

...
Brun - what you have quoted there is actuially nothing to do with the legality of cycling on the pavement. The law is clear. It is illegal to cycle on the footpath.


What you are quoting there is guidance given to police/ public re the use of one particular method of enforcement of the law. The FPN is only one disposal. The police can still summonse someone to court for an offence rather than give a FPN

Additionally, the wording of a minister ( in this case Paul Boateng) CANNOT overturn parliamentary legislation and as such is not really worth the paper it was printed on. The law still remains that cycling on the pavement is illegal.


Whether such a law is enforced is a different matter to whether such a law exists.

I disagree, it could save a £20 fine if the police decide you weren't cycling inconsiderately and apply discretion, as their guidelines suggest.

I do agree that pavement cycling is absolutely illegal, even for a 5 year old with stabilizers.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

...
I never said there couldn't be both. It's just that criminal proceedings are in the hands of the police, Headhuunter can't "pursue" it himself, whereas he can pursue the civil case.

Tha I am afraid is complete nonsense.

There is absolutely no reason why Headhunter cannot bring a criminal case himself. There is absolutely no need for the involvement of the police. Everyone has the right to commence a private prosecution.

So, i'm not sure where you have this myth from, but it is simply wrong.


Is it easy or advisable to bring a private prosecution? now that is a different matter, but is no harder than to bring a civil claim, and to actually institute proceedings is actually easier

I stand corrected. But what would you suggest is the best thing to do?

benno68

It's very frustrating when the police choose to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of their convenience! I wonder if an office could be attached to the DVLA, like a CPS for motoring offences - wishful thinking...

Most drivers, particularly professional drivers are more fearful of points on their licence than an insurance claim or fine alone. Don't forget that for professional drivers, 12 points and they've lost their job - for the general motorist they're on public transport for a while, now that's a punishment they'd deserve!

kingmho

Benno68 wrote:

It's very frustrating when the police choose to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of their convenience! I wonder if an office could be attached to the DVLA, like a CPS for motoring offences - wishful thinking...

Most drivers, particularly professional drivers are more fearful of points on their licence than an insurance claim or fine alone. Don't forget that for professional drivers, 12 points and they've lost their job - for the general motorist they're on public transport for a while, now that's a punishment they'd deserve!

Private criminal prosecutions seem to be a non-runner if the police do decide to sweep it under the carpet. Jones v Whalley [2006] UKHL 41, a fairly mundane case of assault, went all the way to the House of Lords and set a precedent:

"It would be an abuse of process to allow the victim of an assault to privately prosecute his assailant in circumstances where the assailant had been formally cautioned by the police and given assurance that he would not be publicly prosecuted, the House of Lords ruled this morning."

Source: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story. ... getsession

Eau Rouge

We need a campaign.

There has been plenty of talk of some sort of "presumed at fault" law for motorists involved in accidents with cyclists, but these don't sit well within an adversarial legal system and it's need for a presumption of innocence. We also have the existing law of careless driving, which pretty much covers any non-fatal accident these days.

We don't really need to corrupt the legal system what we need is a clear Home Office (or whatever minister it is these days) directove to all police forces to actually prosecute every and all drivers capable of being charged with careless driving involving accidents with vunerable road users, cyclists or otherwise. This would, it appears, be very different to the current guidlines and the cases here of the Police not prosecuting drivers.

The usual argument for not prosecuting when you have enough evidence is about filling up the prisons with people who really don't belong there, and having to release "proper" criminals to fit them in, but careless driving is a non-custodial sentence, so that doesn't apply here. There is no perversion of innocent until proven guilty either, it's the current existing law that is being applied as it should be,

Paying for all these extra prosecutions is a valid problem, the fines won't cover it. You know what would go a long way to covering it though...the current budget spent (wasted) by councils and government on the many next-to-useless "shared use paths" and other so called "cycling facilities" that are next to useless to anyone who'd been cycling more than a month. Maybe that's contraversial, and Sustrans would object massively, but am I not right?

If only there was a general election in the coming few months that we could use to put pressure on politicians eager to win votes any way they can...

kingmho

Eau Rouge wrote:

We need a campaign.

There has been plenty of talk of some sort of "presumed at fault" law for motorists involved in accidents with cyclists, but these don't sit well within an adversarial legal system and it's need for a presumption of innocence. We also have the existing law of careless driving, which pretty much covers any non-fatal accident these days.

We don't really need to corrupt the legal system what we need is a clear Home Office (or whatever minister it is these days) directove to all police forces to actually prosecute every and all drivers capable of being charged with careless driving involving accidents with vunerable road users, cyclists or otherwise. This would, it appears, be very different to the current guidlines and the cases here of the Police not prosecuting drivers.

The usual argument for not prosecuting when you have enough evidence is about filling up the prisons with people who really don't belong there, and having to release "proper" criminals to fit them in, but careless driving is a non-custodial sentence, so that doesn't apply here. There is no perversion of innocent until proven guilty either, it's the current existing law that is being applied as it should be,

Paying for all these extra prosecutions is a valid problem, the fines won't cover it. You know what would go a long way to covering it though...the current budget spent (wasted) by councils and government on the many next-to-useless "shared use paths" and other so called "cycling facilities" that are next to useless to anyone who'd been cycling more than a month. Maybe that's contraversial, and Sustrans would object massively, but am I not right?

If only there was a general election in the coming few months that we could use to put pressure on politicians eager to win votes any way they can...

The massive flaw in your idea is that any politician who proposes "anti-car" legislation would lose votes.

Eau Rouge

kingmho wrote:

The massive flaw in your idea is that any politician who proposes "anti-car" legislation would lose votes.

That's actually the beauty of it, there is no new legislation here, it's a well established older piece of legislation (though technically probably re-done in the latest version of the relevent Act in 2006) that the Polcie do not prosecute as often as they should.
Everybody is an above average driver, they aren't going to be responsible for carelessly having an accident. That's only those other muppets on the road.

kingmho

Eau Rouge wrote:

kingmho wrote:

The massive flaw in your idea is that any politician who proposes "anti-car" legislation would lose votes.

That's actually the beauty of it, there is no new legislation here, it's a well established older piece of legislation (though technically probably re-done in the latest version of the relevent Act in 2006) that the Polcie do not prosecute as often as they should.
Everybody is an above average driver, they aren't going to be responsible for carelessly having an accident. That's only those other muppets on the road.

Ok, how about "any politician who proposes "anti-car" measures would lose votes"?

spen666

kingmho wrote:

Benno68 wrote:

It's very frustrating when the police choose to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of their convenience! I wonder if an office could be attached to the DVLA, like a CPS for motoring offences - wishful thinking...

Most drivers, particularly professional drivers are more fearful of points on their licence than an insurance claim or fine alone. Don't forget that for professional drivers, 12 points and they've lost their job - for the general motorist they're on public transport for a while, now that's a punishment they'd deserve!

Private criminal prosecutions seem to be a non-runner if the police do decide to sweep it under the carpet. Jones v Whalley [2006] UKHL 41, a fairly mundane case of assault, went all the way to the House of Lords and set a precedent:

"It would be an abuse of process to allow the victim of an assault to privately prosecute his assailant in circumstances where the assailant had been formally cautioned by the police and given assurance that he would not be publicly prosecuted, the House of Lords ruled this morning."

Source: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story. ... getsession

You have completely misunderstood that case. It does not apply here

in that case the defendant was given a FORMAL police caution - ie his case was dealt with .

In the RTA situation, the police take no action. A verbal warning to be careful is NOT the same as a formal caution, so the caase is not autrefois convict as it was in the case you refer to.

Eau Rouge

kingmho wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

kingmho wrote:

The massive flaw in your idea is that any politician who proposes "anti-car" legislation would lose votes.

That's actually the beauty of it, there is no new legislation here, it's a well established older piece of legislation (though technically probably re-done in the latest version of the relevent Act in 2006) that the Polcie do not prosecute as often as they should.
Everybody is an above average driver, they aren't going to be responsible for carelessly having an accident. That's only those other muppets on the road.

Ok, how about "any politician who proposes "anti-car" measures would lose votes"?

The current government introduces a charge of death by careless driving and a ban on mobile phones while driving. They aren't totally averse to "anti-driver" legislation, let alone measures. Conservative governments seem to put harsh policing for anyone doing anything wrong as a close second to reducing taxes on their list of things to do in government. The Lib Dems will go for it as a "green initiative"

kingmho

spen666 wrote:

kingmho wrote:

Benno68 wrote:

It's very frustrating when the police choose to sweep it under the carpet for the sake of their convenience! I wonder if an office could be attached to the DVLA, like a CPS for motoring offences - wishful thinking...

Most drivers, particularly professional drivers are more fearful of points on their licence than an insurance claim or fine alone. Don't forget that for professional drivers, 12 points and they've lost their job - for the general motorist they're on public transport for a while, now that's a punishment they'd deserve!

Private criminal prosecutions seem to be a non-runner if the police do decide to sweep it under the carpet. Jones v Whalley [2006] UKHL 41, a fairly mundane case of assault, went all the way to the House of Lords and set a precedent:

"It would be an abuse of process to allow the victim of an assault to privately prosecute his assailant in circumstances where the assailant had been formally cautioned by the police and given assurance that he would not be publicly prosecuted, the House of Lords ruled this morning."

Source: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story. ... getsession

You have completely misunderstood that case. It does not apply here

in that case the defendant was given a FORMAL police caution - ie his case was dealt with .

In the RTA situation, the police take no action. A verbal warning to be careful is NOT the same as a formal caution, so the caase is not autrefois convict as it was in the case you refer to.

I am not trying to shoot down the OP's specific case, good luck to him if he tries his luck pressing criminal charges. The article is there to show that private criminal prosecutions are very much discouraged by the judiciary.

kingmho

Eau Rouge wrote:

kingmho wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

kingmho wrote:

The massive flaw in your idea is that any politician who proposes "anti-car" legislation would lose votes.

That's actually the beauty of it, there is no new legislation here, it's a well established older piece of legislation (though technically probably re-done in the latest version of the relevent Act in 2006) that the Polcie do not prosecute as often as they should.
Everybody is an above average driver, they aren't going to be responsible for carelessly having an accident. That's only those other muppets on the road.

Ok, how about "any politician who proposes "anti-car" measures would lose votes"?

The current government introduces a charge of death by careless driving and a ban on mobile phones while driving. They aren't totally averse to "anti-driver" legislation, let alone measures. Conservative governments seem to put harsh policing for anyone doing anything wrong as a close second to reducing taxes on their list of things to do in government. The Lib Dems will go for it as a "green initiative"

You have a good point there, however those measures were more to do with protecting drivers from other, REALLY BAD drivers, rather than cyclists.

To me, your suggestion clearly favours cyclists at the expense of drivers:

Eau Rouge wrote:

We don't really need to corrupt the legal system what we need is a clear Home Office (or whatever minister it is these days) directove to all police forces to actually prosecute every and all drivers capable of being charged with careless driving involving accidents with vunerable road users, cyclists or otherwise. This would, it appears, be very different to the current guidlines and the cases here of the Police not prosecuting drivers.

Eau Rouge

kingmho wrote:

To me, your suggestion clearly favours cyclists at the expense of drivers:

Just like the new laws, it protects traffic from bad drivers in traffic. There is no "them" vs "us"
My suggestion is to mearly prosecute a law that is not being prosecuted as often as it should be. The law exists. Unlike the other driving laws, this one almost makes sense, and yet it is a matter of routine for the police not to even charge people with it.
Forget cyclists, having the police actually prosecute drivers for careless driving would be the single biggest act in road safety possible in this country.

kingmho

Eau Rouge wrote:

kingmho wrote:

To me, your suggestion clearly favours cyclists at the expense of drivers:

Just like the new laws, it protects traffic from bad drivers in traffic. There is no "them" vs "us"
My suggestion is to mearly prosecute a law that is not being prosecuted as often as it should be. The law exists. Unlike the other driving laws, this one almost makes sense, and yet it is a matter of routine for the police not to even charge people with it.
Forget cyclists, having the police actually prosecute drivers for careless driving would be the single biggest act in road safety possible in this country.

I agree with your sentiment, however I would also point out that a cyclist can not even be charged with "careless driving" AFAIK, only drivers.

snailracer

kingmho wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

kingmho wrote:

To me, your suggestion clearly favours cyclists at the expense of drivers:

Just like the new laws, it protects traffic from bad drivers in traffic. There is no "them" vs "us"
My suggestion is to mearly prosecute a law that is not being prosecuted as often as it should be. The law exists. Unlike the other driving laws, this one almost makes sense, and yet it is a matter of routine for the police not to even charge people with it.
Forget cyclists, having the police actually prosecute drivers for careless driving would be the single biggest act in road safety possible in this country.

I agree with your sentiment, however I would also point out that a cyclist can not even be charged with "careless driving" AFAIK, only drivers.

While it does seem a tad selective to enforce one traffic law while neglecting others (ie RLJ, undertaking, etc) most drivers are barely aware of the existence of cyclists at all - they are unlikely to attribute the introduction of such a measure to cyclists' lobbying.

Giant Jon

My first ever post, just thought i'd throw in my own two-penneth:

Firstly in relation to cycling on pavements, the following 'points to prove' have to be shown in order to show an offence has been committed:

- date and location
- willfully rode a pedal cycle
- upon a footpath/causeway
- by the side of a road made/set apart for the use/accommodation of foot passengers

It would be up to the court to decide if the cyclist was 'willfully' riding on the pavement, the argument being (in an extreme example) if a lorry was about to crush you, you would ride on the pavement... it would not be 'willful'. You could argue that on an extremely busy narrow road, it would necessitate for the safety of yourself, and to allow the unobstructed flow of traffic, to ride on the pavement. Again, this could be argued as not being 'willful' on the half of the cyclist... Of course the police officer in question would generally look at this and take the decision themself, why waste the court's time? Which raises another issue: why is it up to an officer who gets prosecuted and who doesn't?

Which also raises the other issue mentioned: that of prosecuting a dangerous driver. In my experience, and I'm not saying it is the same elsewhere in the country, the only police officers that have enough knowledge of road traffic offences to actually consider taking any action are specially trained 'roads policing officers'. Which account for a very small percentage of frontline officers in my area. In an injury rtc, ideally a roads policing officer will attend, but this is not always the case. In addition, dangerous driving also has it's own 'points to prove', if the officer cannot prove them sufficiently well for the Crown Prosecution Service to make a case, then no action will result. Unforunately, it isn't an ideal world.

... and now I'll shut up

loveiskey

I havent the expewrience of being a cyclist in a crash but imagine its horrible, however,
I have recently ben involved in a car crash where a taxi driver took a risk when supposed to give way in a built up area and I could break in time he ascended a hill approaching his rank after a job and was breaking harshly I slowed down assuming hed stopped but couldnt break and he hit me head on crushing and spinning my car leaving me severely whiplashed (felt my vertabrae crack with the sudden impact and I have scoliosis) my car cost 900 from a friend it had a low mileage it was my first car have driven for 2 years safely and Im left traumatised by the fact this guy lied regarding being blinded by sun when the sun wasnt facing him and it was an overcast day and he wore sunglasses!!!
I was crying by the time people arrived at the scene as this guy had emerged the car hadnt even acknowledged me was faking chest pain as he could nervous laugh and complete long sentences to a passer by while I stood completely disorient and sick
the female of a male female police duo took my details on arrival and insisted on an ambulance as I was evidently breathless from the impact but as I am small have no slipped disk or eveident permanent damge although few days to recover my grip from the impact to my wrists has laid me off duty for a few days
the driver admitted he was at fault but i was infuriated at his lying and at the careless attitude of the police as though I were exaggerating my shock etc
I will have panic attacks and drive slower for atleat a while when I get in a car and all I get is the current price of my vehicle which I will get a significantly worse deal for this time round and feel sick this is all anyone is willing to do
money isnt me issue although it will obviously help me to an extent
I am unsure how my back is affected until im at work and although it sounds extreme I think this wreckless arsehole should get justice after all some would have someone pay him a visit sometime following an incident like that I would not but i am exceptionally lucky
shouldnt pressing charges be justice only for someone acting like this