Road Rage + assault, cops do nothing.

northstar

TailWindHome wrote:

northstar wrote:

It should have gone to court, anything else appears to be trying to sweep it under the carpet, i guess some people here would be happy to be assaulted like this.

So you didn't read Supersonics post then?

supersonic wrote:

The bloke who wrote the above is a P.O. ;-).

If P.O. is police officer that doesn't necessarily mean they understand the law

I don't care whether he is a police officer or not, they should have taken it to court, it's clear to everyone what happens on the video.

supersonic

I put it to him that he was not cautioned and this was the reply:

The local resolution route is something that the victim of the crime has to agree to, so any compensation/letter of apology etc would have had to have been agreed by the victim first. If you think this method is too lenient then blame the cyclist for agreeing to it, because had he not agreed to it the driver would have been given the Police Caution. Oh and yes local resolutions are recordable as well, so he will still have the record and it will still show up in CRB checks and like with the caution it is a one time deal. He's not eligible for another one now and if he does anything like this again the fact he already has one can be used to add weight to any punishment for further offences. So again, Police did nothing actually means "Police gave out a punishment that I agreed with them first."

supersonic

northstar wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

northstar wrote:

It should have gone to court, anything else appears to be trying to sweep it under the carpet, i guess some people here would be happy to be assaulted like this.

So you didn't read Supersonics post then?

supersonic wrote:

The bloke who wrote the above is a P.O. ;-).

If P.O. is police officer that doesn't necessarily mean they understand the law

I don't care whether he is a police officer or not, they should have taken it to court, it's clear to everyone what happens on the video.

Who is 'they', the police? Surely if procedure dictates that he would just be sent back to receive a caution, it seems a waste a time.

steve6690

supersonic wrote:

Anyway, back to the original post, and in reference to the thread title, someone I know well who is not a member here had this comment on FaceBook about the same thing:

Why are people on here suggesting the Police couldn’t/wouldn’t do anything about this? Utter rubbish, the cyclist even acknowledges this on the report. But just to clarify a few things. Firstly the report suggests the man was taken in to be interviewed, this means he was arrested, taken to a Police custody area and placed in a cell. He was then interviewed under caution, where he admitted the offence when presented with the video evidence. The report suggests he had a clean criminal record. Charging standards dictate that a clean record, admittance of offence and certain types of offence can mean that a suspect is ELIGIBLE for a caution. A common assault (one which leaves no or very minor injuries) is such an offence that fits this criteria. All three must apply for a caution to be administered. In order to receive such a caution he must also be CHARGED with the offence of assault. A caution can be dealt with in the Police station prior to the release from custody. The only other thing that could be done here is he be charged and put before a Magistrate. But given the clean record, common assault charge and guilty plea a Magistrate would simply send him back to the Police station to receive the same caution. So essentially a waste of taxpayer money and court time sending him there, hence why in such circumstances the Police can apply the charge and give the caution. This man will now have a criminal record, which he must declare on any application requiring such information. The caution is also a onetime deal, if he does the same thing again and gets charged he will end up before a Magistrate and he will receive a more severe penalty. The fact he’s received a caution for the offence in the video will add weight to any such punishment. So to sum up, the man in the video will have been arrested, charged, given a caution and a criminal record by Police for his little outburst. The article headline is completely misleading and people should really try and learn a bit more about the justice system before they leap to conclusions.

The underlined bit is wrong. You're either charged or given a caution, not both at the same time. As for the magistrates sending a defendant back to the police station to be cautioned instead - I have seen this happen a few years ago but it was very rare. Things should be different nowadays, now that CPS advice must be sought pre-charge ie charges are now authorised by a CPS lawyer. If a suspect were eligible for a caution CPS would expect to hear compelling reasons why a charge should be laid instead. Once CPS authorise a charge, in theory there shouldn't ever be grounds for the magistrates to send the defendant back for a caution instead.
To clear up something else that was also mentioned - just because an offence is admitted in interview at the police station it does not follow that the appearance at court is simply a sentencing hearing. The defendant must also plead guilty at court. It is very possible, and happens quite often, that someone admits the offence in the police interview but then goes not guilty at court.
Back to the original scenario, this would be a common assault which is a "summary only" offence so does not require CPS advice for the police to charge. However, although the police could have charged him without referring to CPS, the preference would still be for a caution because of his eligibility. Had they charged him, CPS might have sent the file back with an instruction to caution instead.

dilemna

I should imagine if you were to find yourself in this situation attacked by a driver, then trying to defend yourself and biazarrely being charged with assault and convicted, your world would collapse. Possible loss of job, career, house, adverse publicity, internet morons hate campaigns. Enough to make you wish you'd never ridden your bike that day. As soon as the filth and CPS smell a definate admission or conviction then they will purse it even if it runs totally against common sense as some one will get a pat on the back for winning a case and "punishing" another criminal. Cyclists are public enemy number one. On the roads you are a 3rd class citizen. Getting punched and knocked around by some thug whose lost the plot will be the least of your worries. If you try and stand up for yourself the filth and courts will make sure you're really screwed over. Best not get involved in any altercations or confrontations.

DonDaddyD

I've often wondered this and something I've challenged Ms DDD about - child custody/access cases etc.

Scenario is exactly the same as the OP's video clip. Only this time...

The guy get out of his car, he comes at the cyclist like a spidermonkey, and due to the cyclists superior physical prowess, bought on by riding a road bike, he drops him Batman style ("from this position there are 963 ways I can end you, 800 of which involve pinching a nipple).

So he wins the fight and the police rock up.

Is he then arrested, can the driver press charges despite approaching the cyclist in a threatening manner and throwing the first punch?

Are we cyclists to simply take the beating or can we defend ourselves?

BelgianBeerGeek

Take a beating or defend yourself - it's your choice. I know which option I would take.

Can't help but feel that some on here have a bit of a persecution complex.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Are we cyclists to simply take the beating or can we defend ourselves?[/quote

Of course you can defend yourself.

Why would you think otherwise?

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Are we cyclists to simply take the beating or can we defend ourselves?

Of course you can defend yourself.

Why would you think otherwise?

So why in all of these videos is it that the cyclists often takes a beating and does nothing in return?

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Are we cyclists to simply take the beating or can we defend ourselves?

Of course you can defend yourself.

Why would you think otherwise?

So why in all of these videos is it that the cyclists often takes a beating and does nothing in return?

Because then the whiney little biatches wouldn't have their "ooo - look - the world is being mean to me" video footage to upload to Youtube.

To be fair, sunglasses and cycling shoes are not the choice of battle attire for streetfighters.

jonginge

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

To be fair, sunglasses and cycling shoes are not the choice of battle attire for streetfighters.

May have to ask boffin to comment on this

DonDaddyD

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Are we cyclists to simply take the beating or can we defend ourselves?

Of course you can defend yourself.

Why would you think otherwise?

So why in all of these videos is it that the cyclists often takes a beating and does nothing in return?

Because then the whiney little biatches wouldn't have their "ooo - look - the world is being mean to me" video footage to upload to Youtube"

To be fair, sunglasses and cycling shoes are not the choice of battle attire for streetfighters.

It does distort the perception though, doesn't it. All these videos of cyclists complaining, examples of bad drivers endangering cyclists lives and of 'us' constantly getting beaten up. You'd think we were being unfairly persecuted...

Even in this youtube video, save for getting out of the car and beating the cyclist up (which is assualt and could have resulted in a caution had the cyclist not accepted money <<eyeroll>>), I don't think the motorist did much wrong and came away thinking the cyclist was the prick.

jedster

Greg and a few others seem to suggest here that if we don't ride like bell-ends we are not going to get assaulted.

I agree that using your common sense is likely to avoid most of these situations. But not all. My reaction to this discussion is a bit ambivalent for a couple of reasons:
1. I hate the idea if I behave like a BIT* of a tosser I've only got myself to blame if I get slapped
2. I have personal experience of something nearly getting very nasty when I was not being a tosser at all** - so I think people who think a disagreement about right of way on the road justifies a punch up need to be delat with seriously*** to make it clear what is and what isnt acceptable.

* I reckon the cyclist in this thread probably is quite a lot of a tosser but he was only a bit of a tosser in that incident

** A guy in a mercedes cut in sharply across my front wheel when there was no need - there were two lanes. I didnt shout at him I just gave a semi-involuntary "whoaaa!!!". As it happens, his window was open. We stopped at lights further up the road. I didn't say anything but he did - asked me what my problem was. I told him he had been too close. He told me "no I wasn't. I cycle too. You're a F***ing C***". Now perhaps I should have said "whatever". But I was pissed off that he'd immediately got very abusive when I'd done absolutely nothing to him, hadn't even had a go at his driving, I'd even been polite when he started a discussion. And he'd pulled that stupid "I cycle too" line. So I told him he was a f***ing joke. Cue a torrent of abuse and he drove his car at me. I realised there was another bloke in the passenger seat who was giving me the same garbage and I genuinely thought I could be on the end of something very nasty. I ended up turning the wrong way up a dual carriage way to avoid them. I don't have a head cam. I don't have an airzound. I don't pick arguments with motorists. I try to cycle considerately as well as safely. I don't think that means I can't get battered by some idiot one day.

*** I actually think the response by the police was pretty proportionate in this incident. I even think our head cam man does too

jedster

BTW

If anyone bothered to read the description of my little run-in on the previous thread. I'd be interested if anyone feels they would have either
- managed not to give the bloke a mouthful
- been less of a pussy and stood his ground against two blokes in a ton of metal

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

It does distort the perception though, doesn't it. All these videos of cyclists complaining, examples of bad drivers endangering cyclists lives and of 'us' constantly getting beaten up. You'd think we were being unfairly persecuted...

Even in this youtube video, save for getting out of the car and beating the cyclist up (which is assualt and could have resulted in a caution had the cyclist not accepted money <<eyeroll>>), I don't think the motorist did much wrong and came away thinking the cyclist was the prick.

I think there are some people who use helmet cams as armor. They think they can just point to it during a confrontation and it will automatically offer them protection. And I think in many cases it probably works. But not always, and in cases where it doesn't they probably feel as though it gives them a way to seek justice in their eyes. This is basically what has happened in the OP video.

I think theres an argument for the notion that there are some helmet cam users that are emboldened to criticise other road users in a way that they wouldn't have if they didn't have a way to protect themselves from potential assault or at least evidence of it afterwards.

notsoblue

jedster wrote:

Greg and a few others seem to suggest here that if we don't ride like bell-ends we are not going to get assaulted.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I think most of us have probably been on the receiving end of unpleasantness for just riding a bike on the road.

DonDaddyD

I've had more arguments with other cyclists than I have had with car drivers. I've come closest to fighting a cyclist (that prick in Elephant & Castle that cut me up) never really come close to fighting a car driver whether I'm driving a car or riding my bike.

I'm not saying that cyclists are the issue it is my experience...

notsoblue

I tend not to get as pissed off with other cyclists as most of the time its just poor bike handling. I've never had anyone ride a bike at me to try and intimidate me.

DonDaddyD

Cyclists do piss me off, I think its due to my added vulnerability or there's (if I'm driving). Also its the lack of consideration the refusal to give way or unsocialble behaviour like drafting. I may just not like their bike.

tailwindhome

You know, in spite of what people are posting on here, every now and again some people do need a smack in the mouth just to bring them into line and stop them from being a d1ck.

Our cycling comrade may benefit from his encounter with Stumpy and come out the other side a wiser, calmer person.

Stumpy is definitely due a slap too. It's only a matter of time for him.

rjsterry

To extend on the subject, apparently this kind of community resolution is being used on more serious violent crime, including domestic violence an knife attacks,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/30/community-resolution-violent-crime-guidelines

steve6690

rjsterry wrote:

To extend on the subject, apparently this kind of community resolution is being used on more serious violent crime, including domestic violence an knife attacks,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/30/community-resolution-violent-crime-guidelines

Usually they are used when the victim does not want to go to court. In this case I would "sell" the community resolution to the victim for the following reasons :

1. They don't need to go to court - where usually the victims damage or loss is not recompensed.
2. There is some kind of restorative justice sanction attached ie "You broke my fence. You have to get it fixed within two weeks". If they don't fulfil that obligation the victim can still have them charged.

Personally I think they're a brilliant idea, if used appropriately. It's all very well saying they should never be used for domestic violence cases or knife attacks but without knowing the exact circumstances in each case it's impossible to understand the reasoning behind the decision.

As an example - domestic violence. Using the most common scenario to illustrate the point.
Man comes home pissed. There's an argument and he hits his wife. She calls police and he is arrested due to the positive arrest policy. He can't be dealt with until the morning when he's sober. Wife doesn't want to have him charged and sent to court because if he gets sent to prison it affects her, and if he gets a fine it also affects her. So she refuses to give a statement. A caution is not really appropriate but that used to be the only option in this scenario other than simply letting him go .
So, what might happen is that I'll sit the wife down and she'll tell me that her husband is only like this when he's pissed. Unfortunately he has a drink problem which he keeps saying he'll get help for but he never has.
So then I might say "How about you give me a statement detailing what he did to you, and all the issues around his alcohol problem. We'll give him a community resolution with the condition attached that he must go and see his GP within a week, seek help for the drinking, and comply with treatment, whether it be attending counselling meetings, taking medication etc etc. If he completes it there'll be no further action from the police. If he doesn't you can still have him charged. Make this his last chance"
They nearly always go for it. The reasons why are obvious.
And there's usually a bit less time and paperwork for the officer. Plus it's a detected offence now which is good for the figures.

rjsterry

steve6690 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To extend on the subject, apparently this kind of community resolution is being used on more serious violent crime, including domestic violence an knife attacks,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/30/community-resolution-violent-crime-guidelines

Usually they are used when the victim does not want to go to court. In this case I would "sell" the community resolution to the victim for the following reasons :

1. They don't need to go to court - where usually the victims damage or loss is not recompensed.
2. There is some kind of restorative justice sanction attached ie "You broke my fence. You have to get it fixed within two weeks". If they don't fulfil that obligation the victim can still have them charged.

Personally I think they're a brilliant idea, if used appropriately. It's all very well saying they should never be used for domestic violence cases or knife attacks but without knowing the exact circumstances in each case it's impossible to understand the reasoning behind the decision.

As an example - domestic violence. Using the most common scenario to illustrate the point.
Man comes home pissed. There's an argument and he hits his wife. She calls police and he is arrested due to the positive arrest policy. He can't be dealt with until the morning when he's sober. Wife doesn't want to have him charged and sent to court because if he gets sent to prison it affects her, and if he gets a fine it also affects her. So she refuses to give a statement. A caution is not really appropriate but that used to be the only option in this scenario other than simply letting him go .
So, what might happen is that I'll sit the wife down and she'll tell me that her husband is only like this when he's pissed. Unfortunately he has a drink problem which he keeps saying he'll get help for but he never has.
So then I might say "How about you give me a statement detailing what he did to you, and all the issues around his alcohol problem. We'll give him a community resolution with the condition attached that he must go and see his GP within a week, seek help for the drinking, and comply with treatment, whether it be attending counselling meetings, taking medication etc etc. If he completes it there'll be no further action from the police. If he doesn't you can still have him charged. Make this his last chance"
They nearly always go for it. The reasons why are obvious.
And there's usually a bit less time and paperwork for the officer. Plus it's a detected offence now which is good for the figures.

Thanks. Good explanation.

ooermissus

Though, in the case that started this thread, the victim wanted a prosecution for the assault and only accepted restorative justice because he thought it was better than a caution.

spen666

steve6690 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

To extend on the subject, apparently this kind of community resolution is being used on more serious violent crime, including domestic violence an knife attacks,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/30/community-resolution-violent-crime-guidelines

Usually they are used when the victim does not want to go to court. In this case I would "sell" the community resolution to the victim for the following reasons :

1. They don't need to go to court - where usually the victims damage or loss is not recompensed.
2. There is some kind of restorative justice sanction attached ie "You broke my fence. You have to get it fixed within two weeks". If they don't fulfil that obligation the victim can still have them charged.

Personally I think they're a brilliant idea, if used appropriately. It's all very well saying they should never be used for domestic violence cases or knife attacks but without knowing the exact circumstances in each case it's impossible to understand the reasoning behind the decision.

As an example - domestic violence. Using the most common scenario to illustrate the point.
Man comes home pissed. There's an argument and he hits his wife. She calls police and he is arrested due to the positive arrest policy. He can't be dealt with until the morning when he's sober. Wife doesn't want to have him charged and sent to court because if he gets sent to prison it affects her, and if he gets a fine it also affects her. So she refuses to give a statement. A caution is not really appropriate but that used to be the only option in this scenario other than simply letting him go .
So, what might happen is that I'll sit the wife down and she'll tell me that her husband is only like this when he's pissed. Unfortunately he has a drink problem which he keeps saying he'll get help for but he never has.
So then I might say "How about you give me a statement detailing what he did to you, and all the issues around his alcohol problem. We'll give him a community resolution with the condition attached that he must go and see his GP within a week, seek help for the drinking, and comply with treatment, whether it be attending counselling meetings, taking medication etc etc. If he completes it there'll be no further action from the police. If he doesn't you can still have him charged. Make this his last chance"
They nearly always go for it. The reasons why are obvious.
And there's usually a bit less time and paperwork for the officer. Plus it's a detected offence now which is good for the figures.

Domestic Violence is excluded from Restorative Justice disposals

ooermissus

spen666 wrote:

Domestic Violence is excluded from Restorative Justice disposals

Seemingly not - from the article linked above:

The House of Commons library figures show that community resolutions were used to resolve 2,225 offences of domestic violence in 2012 in those forces that responded to the FOI requests. The practice is highest in Derbyshire, Manchester and the West Mercia forces.

leodis75

Its a poor excuse for justice. The same wife beater then trys to claim custody of the children, she claims he (which is true) he is a wife beater, no police record of this, a violent man gets his kids.

Its pushing the problem under the rug, a cost cutting figure fudging scheme.

davmaggs

the problem with restorative justice and any other measure that starts out as a sensible solution is that the Police are all too often lazy and really don't want to chase offences up. This means that they look for means to drop cases or to 'encourage' victims not to pursue them.

Restorative justice was a gift to them, and as the BBC article shows guidelines are not going to be followed. Mix in nice victims who mean well, or those unable to be pushy and it means that Police offices can get even more cases dropped.

[not anti-police]

rjsterry

I thought we'd established that in terms of criminal record, an RJ solution counts for the same as a Police Caution.

spen666

ooermissus wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Domestic Violence is excluded from Restorative Justice disposals

Seemingly not - from the article linked above:

The House of Commons library figures show that community resolutions were used to resolve 2,225 offences of domestic violence in 2012 in those forces that responded to the FOI requests. The practice is highest in Derbyshire, Manchester and the West Mercia forces.

Interesting figures as the following is from Merseyside Police Manual on RJ

Domestic Abuse and hate crime - When dealing with such offences, our main concern must be to protect the victim from harm. These victims are among the most vulnerable and it is critical that we respond appropriately when they need help. Domestic abuse and hate crime offences are therefore outside the remit of Street Restorative Justice Resolutions. (For definitions of both domestic abuse and hate crime, please see the relevant Force policies.)

I have just been checking my data and it is conditional cautions by the CPS that exclude DV. RJ is set by the local police forces. So in Merseyside you will not get RJ for DV, but in say Norfolk you will have a chance of it - see below

Currently Restorative Justice cannot be used for any sexual offences; crimes involving possession of knives or any incident involving domestic violence, although some Domestic Incidents may be suitable (refer to Force Policy/ACPO guidelines)

In Manchester, no offences are excluded from RJ per se

It is interesting to see that SO MANY cases are dealt with by RJ in Derbyshire etc.