Remember my "on the phone" video?

Kieran_Burns

This one:

http://youtu.be/4w3ThrvdTec?hd=1

I got a letter from the Leicestershire Constabulary today telling me that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Could someone please explain to me how much evidence you need to get a conviction?

I was stunned to read the letter and actually wonder if they even looked at the video at all.

spen666

I'm not surprised they are doing nothing.

There is not a cat in hell's chance of getting a conviction for that at all

bails87

Unbelievable, I was told the same with 4 independent witnesses but no camera footage.

Have you asked them those questions?

Edit: I'm sure if you go frame by frame through the original you'll get a clear image of the phone in her hand. At full speed on youtube it's not such a sure thing. Although you can make out the spaniel in the passenger seat that seems to have spotted you!

Kieran_Burns

spen666 wrote:

I'm not surprised they are doing nothing.

There is not a cat in hell's chance of getting a prosecution for that at all

Delightful post.

Rather than being so negative, would you care to explain?

Initialised

I went into the back of someone who pulled over in front of me to make/take a phone call. He used it to call be an ambulance I wrote it off as one dem tings, my arm wasn't actually broken, his rear lamp was wrecked I could have predicted and gone around or hit the brakes sooner it if I'd been more alert.

Clearly on the phone as she pulled out. Hopefully you exposed your self to her forcefully enough that she'll be more careful for a while.

mybreakfastconsisted

No prosecution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m40f3u6 ... re=related

No prosecution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fqACT1jNV0

You can drive into a cyclist, in broad daylight, and the cops see nothing wrong with the driving.

Initialised

Make bobbies use bikes for transport to work and on the beat then they might start to sympathise.

mybreakfastconsisted

Initialised wrote:

Mae bobbies use bikes for transport to work and on the beat then they might start to sympathise.

City of London cops are very good on their funky little Smith and Wesson hardtails. One was riding ahead of me on Bishopsgate and a bus stopped randomly, nowhere near a bus stop, and let passengers out, the copper rode up to the door and began remonstrating with the driver, who had several competing emotions flitting across his countenance:

"It's a cyclist, scum, but...it's a copper, a copper...on a bike..does not compute..."

redvee

Only when the Police catch them with their phone in their hands do they prosecute it seems. I reported on of my clips to A&S Police and received an email thanking me for bringing it to their attention, a case number was generated and somebody will be in contact about the footage. I'm still waiting.

TuckerUK

This one:

http://youtu.be/4w3ThrvdTec?hd=1

I got a letter from the Leicestershire Constabulary today telling me that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Could someone please explain to me how much evidence you need to get a conviction?

I was stunned to read the letter and actually wonder if they even looked at the video at all.

This is what your MP is for. Write to them at the House of Commons and express your concerns.

northstar

TuckerUK wrote:

This one:

http://youtu.be/4w3ThrvdTec?hd=1

I got a letter from the Leicestershire Constabulary today telling me that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Could someone please explain to me how much evidence you need to get a conviction?

I was stunned to read the letter and actually wonder if they even looked at the video at all.

This is what your MP is for. Write to them at the House of Commons and express your concerns.

+1 local newspapers and/or radio might like something to write about rather than a local fete (as important as they are of course).

No excuse for being on the phone whilst driving, i suspect the police might think differently if they saw a cyclist doing it.

mybreakfastconsisted

I have no idea what's happening. Are the cops resentful that cyclists are filming errant drivers? Do they low prioritise RTCs involving cyclists? Are they just generally rubbish? I have no idea.

spen666

Kieran_Burns wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I'm not surprised they are doing nothing.

There is not a cat in hell's chance of getting a prosecution for that at all

Delightful post.

Rather than being so negative, would you care to explain?

Simple- what offence do you want them to prosecute for?

There is no offence disclosed on the footage that would get a court to convict.

There is insufficient evidence of driver on phone - apart from you saying she was.

what other offence is there? Driving without due care and attention - not made out on that evidence

She may have not driven as good as you would have liked, but that is not sufficient to make her a criminal

spen666

Having sat observing numerous traffic prosecutions earlier this summer, including many phone offences- it is incredibly difficult to get a court to convict

This case is far weaker than many I saw being dismissed.

If the court won't convict, is there any point in wasting thousands bringing the case to court? In any event the CPS must not prosecute cases if they do not think there is a realistic prospect of conviction

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I have no idea what's happening. Are the cops resentful that cyclists are filming errant drivers? Do they low prioritise RTCs involving cyclists? Are they just generally rubbish? I have no idea.

There was no RTC here! Where there are no accident or only minor damage caused , the guidance is that it is rare that a prosecution for careless driving is appropriate

Look up the CPS charging standards for more details.


I am not expressing an opinion on the guidance, merely stating what it is

spen666

On reviewing the video several times, I can find one offence potentially made out other than any RTA offence

S5 Public Order Act - ie using threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderley behaviour in the hearing or sight of somebody likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress thereby.

"Get off the phone you daft tart"

could easily be construed as being abusive or insulting words and could be likely to cause distress to the motorist

The police have not done anything about this either. The whole incident is one that none of the potential offences are in the public incident to prosecute, even if sufficient evidence exists, which I doubt for any offence alleged


If you disagree, then why not take out a private prosecution and prosecute the driver yourself. You have that right

itboffin

Sorry mate but I couldnt see anything wrong there, this computer is shite so it might have missed some frames.

What did he do? cut you up?

roger_merriman

itboffin wrote:

Sorry mate but I couldnt see anything wrong there, this computer is shite so it might have missed some frames.

What did he do? cut you up?

if you go back frame by frame they are on the phone, and they did keep pulling out inspite of traffic, though by london standards normal doesn't mean it's correct.

this said Spen666 is probably right that it's chance of success is low.

mybreakfastconsisted

Even when drivers drive into cyclists, in broad daylight, the cops do nothing. A blatant left hook and they say nothing will be done.

FoldingJoe

Must admit, first time I watched it I thought you couldn't see the woman on the phone, but when you look more closely you can see she is holding her hand up to her ear, but I wouldn't say you can clearly make out it is a phone.

KB - when she pulled up along side you when turning right, it looks like she apologised? Did she?

Not saying it makes what she did any better, but at least she saw the error of her ways.

Cheers,
FJ

georgee

If you can kill a cyclist while drunk with a truck and get a 6 month ban and a £300 fine, what are they honestly going to do for acting like a weapon with a mobile phone?

If you remonstrate witha driver for doing such a thing, get angry and kick their car causing £500+ of damage are the police more likely to prosecute you, I would say yes but i'd like to know if anyone has been convicted for doing such a thing?

bails87

FoldingJoe wrote:

but when you look more closely you can see she is holding her hand up to her ear, but I wouldn't say you can clearly make out it is a phone.
/quote]

The thing is, that's a compressed youtube video, the original will have more detail (I've got the same cam, and youtube takes out a fair bit of detail when you upload)

Kieran_Burns

bails87 wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

but when you look more closely you can see she is holding her hand up to her ear, but I wouldn't say you can clearly make out it is a phone.
/quote]

The thing is, that's a compressed youtube video, the original will have more detail (I've got the same cam, and youtube takes out a fair bit of detail when you upload)

Yup - it's much clearer on the original footage (which the Police got)

Oh, and Spen - I would LOVE to go to Court over calling her a "daft tart" if nothing else I would really enjoy watching people trying to keep a straight face.

CiB

Late to the party as usual, but on the way home I remembered seeing something on the local news the other night, and it struck me that there isn't a hope in hell of the woman in your video Keiran being prosecuted.

To keep it brief, a PC has been found not guilty of dangerous driving that lead to the deaths of two men, after crashing whilst overtaking another car on the way to an emergency call with the full blues & twos going. The driver of the other car refused to answer questions in court over whether or not he was using his mobile phone at the time of the accident, even though call logs showed that at the time of the crash his phone had received a call.

Here's the stories:

Case on-going
PC acquitted

There are so many questions arising here, the most obvious being how refusal to incriminate oneself should be the end of it, when records exist to show what happened.

If the courts can't or won't convict a driver who's caused two deaths by his casual use of a mobile phone, there's not a hope of a woman who caused a cyclist to be a bit miffed being prosecuted.

itboffin

I was stopped randomly by a policeman coming along piccadilly in my car, he said I was on the phone which i wasn't i just had my hand against my head while stuck in the traffic.

It wasn't until we both really looked at each other "hello dad" said I

@OP not saying your situation was the same it just reminded me of that incident.

mybreakfastconsisted

CiB wrote:

Late to the party as usual, but on the way home I remembered seeing something on the local news the other night, and it struck me that there isn't a hope in hell of the woman in your video Keiran being prosecuted.

To keep it brief, a PC has been found not guilty of dangerous driving that lead to the deaths of two men, after crashing whilst overtaking another car on the way to an emergency call with the full blues & twos going. The driver of the other car refused to answer questions in court over whether or not he was using his mobile phone at the time of the accident, even though call logs showed that at the time of the crash his phone had received a call.

Here's the stories:

Case on-going
PC acquitted

There are so many questions arising here, the most obvious being how refusal to incriminate oneself should be the end of it, when records exist to show what happened.

If the courts can't or won't convict a driver who's caused two deaths by his casual use of a mobile phone, there's not a hope of a woman who caused a cyclist to be a bit miffed being prosecuted.

Stone me, that's grim, the poor copper.