Road Rage + assault, cops do nothing.

mybreakfastconsisted

Not my clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepRJC1D ... r_embedded

http://www.birminghamcyclist.com/forum/ ... 1#comments

The driver was not charged. He was brought in for interview and initially claimed provocation, that I kicked his van and kicked him in the chest. He changed his story when told there was video evidence. He still claimed I kicked him and the van and only after the officer pointed out that she couldn't see any of that, on his solicitor's advice he finally accepted full responsibility.

Because he had no police record and admitted to the offence, under the ridiculous scoring system imposed on the police he was eligible for a caution. As the victim I was given the choice of the driver receiving a caution or I could accept a local resolution, the terms of which that I would receive an amount in compensation and a written apology. I'm far from happy about it but reluctantly accepted the resolution. *I don't think the police are to blame* but the decisions made by Government departments that govern them.

This was a violent, unprovoked attack that has no place in society and I'm very disappointed and angry that the driver will not face criminal consequences.

tailwindhome

I'm not sure I agree with the thread title. The police didn't 'do nothing', they investigated, got a confession and gave the 'victim' the options they could.

mybreakfastconsisted

I think I'll try swearing at a copper, punching the copper and pushing them to the floor then offer a letter saying "I'm sorry".

rick_chasey

Bizarre.

What does a caution actually mean?

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with the thread title. The police didn't 'do nothing', they investigated, got a confession and gave the 'victim' the options they could.

Given what you saw are you satisfied with the punishment?

mybreakfastconsisted

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bizarre.

What does a caution actually mean?

IANAL but I think it means you admit the offence and get an official warning. I've never heard of "local resolutions" before.

Ber Nard

Yes it's lame punishment for assault but in my opinion the cyclist could have avoided the situation in the first place.

I watched that Youtube clip the first time with the sound off and assumed the van driver must have given the cyclist some grief or blasted the horn unnecessarily as I couldn't see anything wrong with his driving. Watched it again with the sound on to find it's the cyclist blasting his horn and mouthing off instead!

I'm not excusing the van driver's actions, but the cyclist seems to be another helmet camera vigilante.

Why couldn't he have let that non-incident go? It would have saved him a kicking. And shaking his head at someone parking their car because it stopped him undertaking stationary traffic? He needs to lighten up.

Rob

rick_chasey

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bizarre.

What does a caution actually mean?

IANAL but I think it means you admit the offence and get an official warning. I've never heard of "local resolutions" before.

In answer to my own question:

https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty

Cautions
Cautions are given to adults aged 18 or over for minor crimes - eg writing graffiti on a bus shelter.

You have to admit an offence and agree to be cautioned. If you don’t agree, you can be arrested and charged.

A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime.

I guess the question boils down to whether it's a minor crime or not.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with the thread title. The police didn't 'do nothing', they investigated, got a confession and gave the 'victim' the options they could.

Given what you saw are you satisfied with the punishment?

No. But that's not the police's fault and its wrong to say they did nothing.

ooermissus

Would be curious to see the scoring system that they use to make a decision like this one.

notsoblue

Theres no excuse for the behaviour of the driver here, and trying to door someone is pretty terrible let alone actually assaulting someone on the street like that, but the attitude of the cyclist prior to being assaulted kinda stinks. He makes a big song and dance out of having been slowed down by someone just parallel parking their car, then after honking at a white van man who then tries to door him for it, he honks again.

This is the behaviour of someone who makes a point of being antagonistic on the road. Seems weird that he isn't prepared for that kind of assault. I wonder if he rides that way when he doesn't have camera?

bobinski

Rick Chasey wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bizarre.

What does a caution actually mean?

IANAL but I think it means you admit the offence and get an official warning. I've never heard of "local resolutions" before.

In answer to my own question:

https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty

Cautions
Cautions are given to adults aged 18 or over for minor crimes - eg writing graffiti on a bus shelter.

You have to admit an offence and agree to be cautioned. If you don’t agree, you can be arrested and charged.

A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime.

I guess the question boils down to whether it's a minor crime or not.

That link is a little missleading.
Without going into the nuts and bolts, in general a caution can be administered for any offence where an admission has been made and where it is considered suitable to caution rather than charge. They are often sensibly used,for example minor offences,first time offenders or where an offence is committed in extremis. But they are not limited to minor offences. Conditions can be attached, for example compensation for the victim. The victim would normally be consulted first. There is much concern in Government that they are inappropitely used where a charge would be more appropiate BUT they are a cheap way of securing a de facto conviction for "crime solved" purposes and freeing up stretched police and cps resourses-so the argument goes anyway.

rjsterry

Sounds remarkably similar bails's incident a while back.

Edit: it's not the same incident I hasten to add.

mybreakfastconsisted

It got a bit mental, the owner of the company denied knowing the driver. Some bods on Reddit found her Facebook page and photos of her wedding. To the thug driver. She is now no longer on Facebook or Twitter.

DonDaddyD

Many thoughts come into mind on this one.

1. I remember a thread started by a cyclist in a similar situation, though he made a monkey gesture at the driver (white guy - so no racial connotations, just implied he was dumb). The driver got out and punched him in the ribs so hard he dropped him to the ground. We told that cyclist it served him right.

2. Getting beeped is hugely annoying. Not get out and fight annoying.

3. I hate motorist who seem to think cyclists shouldn't express frustration or annoyance through gestures or sound. Had that been a car driver he probably wouldn't have gotten out of the car.

4. I hate cyclists high on adrenaline that complain about motorists just trying to get ahead. Was the overtake really that close. The cyclist was very far over to the right, once he turned into the road he veers over to the right.

5. I'd have probably moved in to let the van pass when I first entered the road. I do this now when leaving a main road andentering a side road. It means I don't have to worry about a car behind me desperate get ahead and zoom down an empty side road. There is nothing wrong in giving way.

6. How did the guy know the van was chasing him? Assuming the camera is on his head (it is as it drops to the ground with him) at no point does he look behind him.

7. Nothing excuses the actions of the motorist and I wish police would do more with incidents like this.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I've watched the video a few times now. Utterly perplexing. It didn't look remotely like a close pass.

I note that the cyclist's account says he used an AirZound.

Helmet cam + AirZound = thar be trouble ahead.

jonny_trousers

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Helmet cam + AirZound = thar be trouble ahead.

Nuff said.

ooermissus

Yeah - the cyclist hooted a horn. Surely he should have been prosecuted.

bails87

Yep, very similar to my case except i didn't beep a horn or do any slightly dicey filtering. And I wasn't even offered a caution for the offender, it was the local resolution or nothing.

See the discussion here http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/road-rage-video
And this rather telling comment

There does seem to be a trend here. I went to my local police to complain about a driver (the car came too close, I instinctively moved left, which is a good job as otherwise I'd have been hit by the caravan - though it was their insistence that I was in the wrong rather than them when I caught them up which led me to report). My local force is West Mercia, however when they checked on the driver it turned out he lived in the West Midlands police area. I was told that if he was in our police area they'd pay him a home visit, but not worth bothering to pass on to West Mids as they'd ignore it.

And there's another assault in the west Midlands force area here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... -instances

jedster

Helmet cam + AirZound = thar be trouble ahead.

Yeah - I tend to agree.

Except this guy was not behaving nearly as badly as some cyclists who end up getting punched. He didnt give the driver a load of verbal, he didn't slap the van or kick a door mirror*. The cam and horn might suggest he is not the most level-headed but he did absolutely nothing to provoke anything like that level of response. I really dont think he deserves a "well you used an airzound, what do you expect" response.

*in case it's not obvious, I dont think people really deserve a punch for dishing out a bit of verbal or slapping a van but in the real wor;d you should be prepared for it. I don't think you really need to be prepared for a dooring / punching for beeing a horn, even if it is a bit of an obnoxious one..

Ben6899

FWIW, when the van driver gets out of the van for the first time, I don't think he's trying to door the cyclist. That would have been a very unfortunate by-product.

mudcow007

notsoblue wrote:

This is the behaviour of someone who makes a point of being antagonistic on the road. Seems weird that he isn't prepared for that kind of assault. I wonder if he rides that way when he doesn't have camera?

yap 100%

why did he start moaning about the car that was parking?

the cyclist seemed like a bit of a mammary gland to be honest, the van driver was an angry dwarf too. Trying to "door" a cyclist because he honked him is well out of order

nich

I think the driver deserves to be punished for this one. The gap was fine (hence no need for the horn), but he assaulted the cyclist.

Most male drivers I see seem to get aggressive when confronted on the road. If you shout abuse at someone because they made a dodgy move, or you buzz them with a horn, I think you need to expect the worse these days and be prepared to get into a scrap. Defusing the situation with words is also allowed, and so is legging it

danlikesbikes

Though to call really but would suggest that the cyclist is a bit highly strung IMHO, first trying to undertake the van then shaking his head at a car that was trying to park & asking what they were doing. I do understand the reason why city commuters would use such a horn & helmet cam however think the riding style was a little aggressive instead of being positive in terms of riding and road position.

I agree with others that the open door on the van was the driver getting out to have a word though hard to tell if the driver was going to hit the cyclist straight away, but the cyclist then beeping the horn & waving of hands at this action probably made the situation worse either way. Have no idea what the third horn beeping and looking around was could be nothing or could be another hand gesture?

I could not see anything wrong with the van overtake it appeared to give plenty of room and was pretty safe.

I in no way condone violence from the van driver, however if this was in car camera footage from cyclist i think we would all be commenting that in part his aggression was a contributing factor to an equally aggressive van driver.

Edit: have watched the video twice as suggested without sound & then with sound and it does make a difference to ones interpretation of whats going on.

bushu

love a good scrap tbh but, only if called for. Always be prepared for idiots you will find most of these small minded bullies think they can hit you before getting off the bike which to me is the greatest risk! first thing to think of with any confrontation is prepare to hop off and a pre-emtped jab as they charge towards will give them a second thought as seriously you cant argue with idiots. If still wanting to confront you a good cleat stomp to the thigh/groin or side of knee depending what he deserves, should keep him down while you pootle off. i shall be doing bike defence classes next week kids - meet in the village hall, be good & stay safe..

If you lack attack speed for whatever reason use a 'orrible chain, keep on your body and have in hand when you hop off. bullies/scrotes mainly attack as they see a weak person if you alter that perception these cowards realise they have left their metal box and this dog bites back.

(Health & safety disclaimer for crackheads - they have no rational fear if they want something from you, they will make a game of it.. strong sharp jab to the throat do us all a favour!)

EDIT-Forgot to mention this cyclist probably just deserved a stern word for a hideous horn, but you can't argue with idiots :roll:

steve6690

Sigh. Ok, once again : The police do not make the rules as to whether someone is eligible for a caution. The police investigate and gather evidence. Stop knocking the police for doing their job and following the rules.

ooermissus

steve6690 wrote:

Sigh. Ok, once again : The police do not make the rules as to whether someone is eligible for a caution. The police investigate and gather evidence. Stop knocking the police for doing their job and following the rules.

Is that true? Surely the police have a lot of discretion.

thepeopleschamp

A cyclist who gets a bit uppity Vs A driver suffering from Napoleon complex..never going to end well.

I do think the fact short-ar$e got out his van just to beat this guy up deserves more than a caution. Stumpy should at least have a criminal record for that, he's obviously got a short fuse so likely to do it again.

bails87

Knowing how the Contour (which I suspect is the cam being used) distorts stuff up close I'd say the back of the van cut in and got very close to the bike, and that's what lead to the horn being used.

graeme_s-2

Was the cyclist being a bit of a dick? Yes
Is "he was being a bit of a dick" an excuse to assault someone? No, never.

If this assault had happened in the work place, on a high street or in a bar then I don't think many people would be making excuses for it.

As an aside, my experience with West Midlands Police is on two occasions I've failed to get them to even record incidents when I've been knocked off my bike by vehicles, never mind do anything to actually investigate them.

danlikesbikes

bails87 wrote:

Knowing how the Contour (which I suspect is the cam being used) distorts stuff up close I'd say the back of the van cut in and got very close to the bike, and that's what lead to the horn being used.

That is a good point, as after watching the footage the van looks wide & far enough in front however could be that the camera used has some sort of distorting effect.