# UK Police – Dereliction of Duty



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

I just want to get an idea of how many cyclist have problems with the Police refusing to charge drivers verses how many think the Police are doing a fair or even a good job at policing behaviour around cyclist when presented with evidence such as this 
View: https://youtu.be/Y7lUJx4aNnY

I am not thinking about there the Police have no evidence other that opposing statements, I am only focusing to instances where the Police have been given video evidence, either from a cyclist’s camera, motorists, or even street CCTV video.
Would like to be able to look at a video of an incident, and judge for myself the standard of Policing, without too much he said, she said. Just evidence and results.


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Jan 2016)

I have looked at this a few times and must admit that I can see how the police can have trouble using this type of footage for evidence. Because of the fish eye lens effect it is hard to gauge just how close the car is. It may have been very close to you but it doesnt look that bad on film.

It appears that when the police have good evidence that they can work with, they are acting on it.

You need to revise your polling choices. Your heading makes me think you are only interested at having a go at the police.


----------



## derrick (24 Jan 2016)

Will let you know if they decide to nick the woman who knocked my wife of.


----------



## the snail (24 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> Because of the fish eye lens effect it is hard to gauge just how close the car is. It may have been very close to you but it doesnt look that bad on film.


Looks terrible to me, if you watch the pass from the forward cam, it looks very close - about a foot maybe. Beeping horn - clearly a punishment pass. If you wanted to demonstrate how close this was, you could put the bike a measured distance from a parked car and film it to compare. No reason I can see not to get a conviction for careless driving, other than the police CBA, CGAF.


----------



## summerdays (24 Jan 2016)

*MOD: *I've edited the poll to hopefully what was intended, as it stood it didn't make any sense.


----------



## Markymark (24 Jan 2016)

Cams can't be used as evidence if it is t demonstrate distance or speed as they're not calibrated and wouldn't stand up in court.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

summerdays said:


> *MOD: *I've edited the poll to hopefully what was intended, as it stood it didn't make any sense.


Cheers, it probably doesn't need stating, but I didn't have a clue how it worked. I did not even know there was a poll option until the end and just played with it a bit.
Thanks


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Cams can't be used as evidence if it is t demonstrate distance or speed as they're not calibrated and wouldn't stand up in court.


Evidence from it can though, the road can be measured, the car, and bike can, and any mark on the road the vehicle wheels touched can be plotted to prove positions.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2016)

I have had a couple of set pieces. One was a left hook, which was unmistakeable, and another was pulling out of a junction.

In both cases I was helped by the drivers lying

In the first case he denied the manoeuvre completely, and the second one blamed me because I had no lights.......then had to explain to the Police what was illuminating the side of their car.

Both were cautioned, and the former lost their job.


----------



## Markymark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Evidence from it can though, the road can be measured, the car, and bike can, and any mark on the road the vehicle wheels touched can be plotted to prove positions.


Would never happen fur anything less than a serious injury or death.


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Evidence from it can though, the road can be measured, the car, and bike can, and any mark on the road the vehicle wheels touched can be plotted to prove positions.



I am playing devils advocate here.

I appreciate this is a close pass and not an accident. With the ressources the police have, do you really want them to be viewing videos and coming out to measure roads and then go searching for the driver of the car?

Or would you think that was a waste of their ressources?

There must be 1000s of these passes every working day. Do they investigation them all?

I have had plenty of close passes but I just got on with it if contact wasn't made.


----------



## MichaelW2 (24 Jan 2016)

Is it worth calibrating your camera. Film a tape measure from your centreline, at different distances.


----------



## PK99 (24 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I am playing devils advocate here.
> 
> I appreciate this is a close pass and not an accident. With the ressources the police have, do you really want them to be viewing videos and coming out to measure roads and then go searching for the driver of the car?
> 
> ...



I'd like the police to go searching for the two cyclists who nearly hit me and other pedestrians last Tuesday at 1315hrs on the Zebra outside the British Museum. Cars both ways were stopped, cyclists barreled through without hesitating, forcing several pedestrians to take avoiding action - given the location there must be CCTV.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Would never happen fur anything less than a serious injury or death.


Is that because the Police are not taking dangerous behaviour around cyclists as seriously as other things? Say Shoplifting for example, generally the item the shoplifter took are either back in the possession of the shop, or very easily retrieved yet even without any physical harm caused to anyone the Police will attend and charge. Seems a little strange to rely on a cyclist needing to be injured or killed before the Police will charge someone. Are you sure this is the criteria the Police actually work on, it sounds sick to me.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I am playing devils advocate here.
> 
> I appreciate this is a close pass and not an accident. With the ressources the police have, do you really want them to be viewing videos and coming out to measure roads and then go searching for the driver of the car?
> 
> ...


It really depends of how stretched the Police are and how much they care about lives, verses trivial acts like a few percent above the limit where there is clearly minimal risk in many of the cases yet they feel they need to spend resources on they. I don't think your advocate understands how it works, they just call the driver on the phone or go to the drivers house, no need for a manhunt.


----------



## Markymark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Is that because the Police are not taking dangerous behaviour around cyclists as seriously as other things? Say Shoplifting for example, generally the item the shoplifter took are either back in the possession of the shop, or very easily retrieved yet even without any physical harm caused to anyone the Police will attend and charge. Seems a little strange to rely on a cyclist needing to be injured or killed before the Police will charge someone. Are you sure this is the criteria the Police actually work on, it sounds sick to me.


No. Cam evidence will not be taken as it is not calibrated. They wouldn't go to the trouble of getting forensics out and teams of photographers and mathmeticians for a collisionless video.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> No. Cam evidence will not be taken as it is not calibrated. They wouldn't go to the trouble of getting forensics out and teams of photographers and mathmeticians for a collisionless video.


I think you are exaggerating. I am only talking about getting out a tape measure.
Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?


----------



## Markymark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> I think you are exaggerating. I am only talking about getting out a tape measure.
> Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?


Tape measure? Would be destroyed in court by any solicitor.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Tape measure? Would be destroyed in court by any solicitor.


wow bad news for tape measures, 
Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?


----------



## fossyant (24 Jan 2016)

Greater Manchester Police won't do anything even if you are seriously injured. There were two cyclists injured in Manchester on 24th and 25th November, both serious (one me) and in similar circumstances (right turning car) and GMP did nothing. 

Leigh Day are chasing them.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I have looked at this a few times and must admit that I can see how the police can have trouble using this type of footage for evidence. Because of the fish eye lens effect it is hard to gauge just how close the car is. It may have been very close to you but it doesnt look that bad on film.
> 
> It appears that when the police have good evidence that they can work with, they are acting on it.
> 
> You need to revise your polling choices. Your heading makes me think you are only interested at having a go at the police.


Can you show any examples of the evidence that the Police are able to work with?


----------



## Markymark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> wow bad news for tape measures,
> Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that?


What are you talking about. 

I'll say it again. Cam evidence is not Callibrated. It would take a team to present it as evidence sufficient for court. Experts at that. Far more police hours than a couple of local bobbies attending a store. That's why it doesn't happen.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I have looked at this a few times and must admit that I can see how the police can have trouble using this type of footage for evidence. Because of the fish eye lens effect it is hard to gauge just how close the car is. It may have been very close to you but it doesnt look that bad on film.
> 
> It appears that when the police have good evidence that they can work with, they are acting on it.
> 
> You need to revise your polling choices. Your heading makes me think you are only interested at having a go at the police.


O and the Police were happy with this evidence being enough the charge the driver until the driver said he used his horn to warn me to get out of his way, the Police Officer then concluded that the driver was not at fault!


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> What are you talking about.
> 
> I'll say it again. Cam evidence is not Callibrated. It would take a team to present it as evidence sufficient for court. Experts at that. Far more police hours than a couple of local bobbies attending a store. That's why it doesn't happen.


Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that? I say again, dangerous verses petty crime!


----------



## Markymark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Anyway, about the criteria you seem to think the Police are working on for cyclist verses that for shopkeepers, are you sure about that? I say again, dangerous verses petty crime!


As far as the police and courts are concerned it's not dangerous driving unless it's proved to be dangerous driving. That footage sadly will not stand up. The driver could say they gave you 1m. You would need to prove it was less. The amount of resources it would take to prove that would be decided as unnessary as there was no collision. Taking out a tape measure will not cut it.

The police allocate resources based on likelihood of convictions. In your case, I'd say it's pretty much zero.


----------



## SeanM (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> O and the Police were happy with this evidence being enough the charge the driver until the driver said he used his horn to warn me to get out of his way, the Police Officer then concluded that the driver was not at fault!



Unless you've cut the video, using a horn to warn you of danger, which is correct and proper, according to the highway code. Didn't seem to cause you to turn your head to discover the danger, in which case it was insufficient, and the driver shouldn't have proceeded. Common sense ?


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

SeanM said:


> Unless you've cut the video, using a horn to warn you of danger, which is correct and proper, according to the highway code. Didn't seem to cause you to turn your head to discover the danger, in which case it was insufficient, and the driver shouldn't have proceeded. Common sense ?


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

SeanM said:


> Unless you've cut the video, using a horn to warn you of danger, which is correct and proper, according to the highway code. Didn't seem to cause you to turn your head to discover the danger, in which case it was insufficient, and the driver shouldn't have proceeded. Common sense ?


What? didn't you see me checking the bar end mirror, it is in the video, what was I meant to do? cycle in the door zone? Was I to assume the driver was incapable of driving safely? Seeing the car behind me I naturally thought he was warning someone of something other than his inabilities. You are not meant to sound your horn and then create the danger. Seriously, what is your problem with being able to understand the situation?
and yet again do you think it is right that the Police prefer trivial wastes of time in shops verses public safety?


----------



## Banjo (24 Jan 2016)

At a time the police are stretched to the limit reports of collisions that nearly happened are unlikely to be prioritized.
As much as I think that driver needs locking up in the real world its not going to happen.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Banjo said:


> At a time the police are stretched to the limit reports of collisions that nearly happened are unlikely to be prioritized.
> As much as I think that driver needs locking up in the real world its not going to happen.


Fortunately the Police were not stretched, they interviewed me, then they visited the driver to issue a section 171 for the dangerous pass, it was only after the driver told them he used his horn to try to get me to cycle in the door zone that they decided not to charge the driver for the dangerous behaviour.


----------



## steveindenmark (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> What? didn't you see me checking the bar end mirror, it is in the video, what was I meant to do? cycle in the door zone? Was I to assume the driver was incapable of driving safely? Seeing the car behind me I naturally thought he was warning someone of something other than his inabilities. You are not meant to sound your horn and then create the danger. Seriously, what is your problem with being able to understand the situation?
> and yet again do you think it is right that the Police prefer trivial wastes of time in shops verses public safety?




I really dont see the point in people postings things like this if they are not going to respect other People's opinions.

I disagree with you as do other people on here. Thats life.


----------



## classic33 (24 Jan 2016)

Can I take it you don't work in a shop. The local police force will only attend if injury is caused by the shoplifter(s). Many of whom seem to know this. Or there has been theft of medication and the shoplifter(s) caught.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

classic33 said:


> Can I take it you don't work in a shop. The local police force will only attend if injury is caused by the shoplifter(s). Many of whom seem to know this. Or there has been theft of medication and the shoplifter(s) caught.


That sounds bad, and not what happen at the shop my friend works at


----------



## Brandane (24 Jan 2016)

Like it or not @thevexe @thevet OP; we are now in a whole new world of Policing. Despite Government propoganda to the contrary, we all know that Officer numbers have been slashed to the core, and the workload of those remaining has increased beyond all recognition. Close passes by car drivers might be a big deal to cyclists, but in the grand scheme of things the Police have much more on their plate. In an ideal world they would have the time and resources to do what you want them to do, but it isn't going to happen. The roads have IMHO become a much more dangerous place to be in recent years, from lack of maintenance to lack of Policing. We just have to live with it, or stop using them. Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I really dont see the point in people postings things like this if they are not going to respect other People's opinions.
> 
> I disagree with you as do other people on here. Thats life.


People will always voice their opinion and enter into debate, that's life, I have no solution for you if you don't like it, sorry about that!


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Brandane said:


> Like it or not @thevexe @thevet OP; we are now in a whole new world of Policing. Despite Government propoganda to the contrary, we all know that Officer numbers have been slashed to the core, and the workload of those remaining has increased beyond all recognition. Close passes by car drivers might be a big deal to cyclists, but in the grand scheme of things the Police have much more on their plate. In an ideal world they would have the time and resources to do what you want them to do, but it isn't going to happen. The roads have IMHO become a much more dangerous place to be in recent years, from lack of maintenance to lack of Policing. We just have to live with it, or stop using them. Not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.


The thing is they did have the time to investigate this, they just did an appalling job, The Police had the time, you will often hear they don't, but that is just not true. There have been many time saving technologies introduced, hence they do have the time, and did give the time.


----------



## SeanM (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> What? didn't you see me checking the bar end mirror, it is in the video, what was I meant to do? cycle in the door zone? Was I to assume the driver was incapable of driving safely? Seeing the car behind me I naturally thought he was warning someone of something other than his inabilities. You are not meant to sound your horn and then create the danger. Seriously, what is your problem with being able to understand the situation?
> and yet again do you think it is right that the Police prefer trivial wastes of time in shops verses public safety?



No i didn't actually see you check your mirror. (That tiny little thing attached to your bar)

I was actually on your side, meaning that if the car driver didn't see you turn your head, (it's a fair bet he has no clue that you have a mirror) he probably should have erred on the side of caution. No matter.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Cams can't be used as evidence if it is t demonstrate distance or speed as they're not calibrated and wouldn't stand up in court.



This point has been repeated a few times in this thread, but it's not quite right.

Evidence is evidence.

A witness could give evidence, the witness is not calibrated or even an expert observer, but it's still valid evidence.

It comes down to what weight the magistrates or a jury attach to whatever evidence is put before them.


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

Does anybody know the police numbers from say 1970 compared with today. Also with crime rates supposedly dropping have they got more work to do.


----------



## summerdays (24 Jan 2016)

screenman said:


> Does anybody know the police numbers from say 1970 compared with today. Also with crime rates supposedly dropping have they got more work to do.


The paperwork for a similar crime now and then I suspect is far greater, and the types of crimes has shifted I imagine.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

SeanM said:


> No i didn't actually see you check your mirror. (That tiny little thing attached to your bar)
> 
> I was actually on your side, meaning that if the car driver didn't see you turn your head, (it's a fair bet he has no clue that you have a mirror) he probably should have erred on the side of caution. No matter.


Sorry, I though you were someone else


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

summerdays said:


> The paperwork for a similar crime now and then I suspect is far greater, and the types of crimes has shifted I imagine.



Does that mean the police have managed to create more work instead of less.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

screenman said:


> Does anybody know the police numbers from say 1970 compared with today. Also with crime rates supposedly dropping have they got more work to do.


Police I.T. support back then was nothing compared to today, I am not sure the numbers would mean anything if we had them. A bit like comparing how long in takes to build a car by hand verses in a factory with robots


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Police I.T. support back then was nothing compared to today, I am not sure the numbers would mean anything if we had them. A bit like comparing how long in takes to build a car by hand verses in a factory with robots



Is IT not civilian jobs.


----------



## Hip Priest (24 Jan 2016)

screenman said:


> Does anybody know the police numbers from say 1970 compared with today. Also with crime rates supposedly dropping have they got more work to do.



I don't believe for a second that crime rates have dropped.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

screenman said:


> Is IT not civilian jobs.


Yes, and far more efficient than thumbing through paper files, and sending letters


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Jan 2016)

I have voted no.

1. We don't have a cat in hell's chance of seeing a prosecution go through on the basis of a video like that. Let's assume the video in the OP got to court - the driver and/or solicitor would make mincemeat of it. That doesn't mean it's impossible - but it is ......... vanishingly unlikely!

Drivers like that have grown well used to the situation, don't give a monkeys, and take every advantage. Some from complacency, some for malicious devilment.

2. Police DO have a "light-weight" option however. Which could be used, and should be used? 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59 -


> 59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
> (1)Where a constable in uniform *has reasonable grounds for believing* that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—
> 
> (a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
> ...



The power to seize the vehicle - as long as a warning has been issued.

No faffing around with measuring tapes and calibration. All the PC has to do is put his/her cap on when s/he watches the video clip - and pass the job of recording the incident and issuing the formal warning letter; part of it to clerical staff .... or even some of the tasks could go to volunteers.

All it would take - a month's trial. The local papers would hum. The radio phone-ins would sizzle.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Hip Priest said:


> I don't believe for a second that crime rates have dropped.


I wouldn't be surprise if people had stopped reporting crime though, there's more than one way to improve reported crime!


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

Hip Priest said:


> I don't believe for a second that crime rates have dropped.



Nor do I, but I feel fewer maybe getting reported.


----------



## Hip Priest (24 Jan 2016)

screenman said:


> Nor do I, but I feel fewer maybe getting reported.



That's certainly true. Many uninsured victims don't bother reporting thefts. What would be the point?


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

MichaelW2 said:


> Is it worth calibrating your camera. Film a tape measure from your centreline, at different distances.


Not for me, I have hard mounted cameras in the past and they don't last very long, to show the calibration is unaltered the mount would need to be custom build to only be able to hold the camera in the calibrated position. A helmet camera would be impossible to show calibration on.
What would be very easy is to hand the camera to the Police and have them record the passing car's window, door (whatever) from a similar angles and distances shown in the evidence and so determine a range of possible distances from the camera. to the car. There may be a days work involved the first time, but it would get faster each time. They could even hold a national database of cameras statistics. No idea what it would cost, but once they have worked out how much a human life is worth (they will actually have that worked out strange as it sounds to justify safety campaigns) they can then see if stopping dangerous behaviour around cyclists is worth doing (assuming a cyclists life is equal to the value they have for anyone else!)
Scratch that! Yes, it is worth calibrating, and is very easy to do, I am sure the Police could do this in order to convict, I would happily had in one of my many cameras for Police calibration.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> What would be very easy is ..................


Umm - I think you're being optimistic about anything being very easy. 

Look at the paperwork behind a "low-level" Section 59 warning - 

http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/pdf/Annex B 2009-00717.pdf

http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/pdf/A004 Anti social use of motor vehicles.pdf

http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/pdf/Response Letter 2009-00628.pdf
A small force. Who would be a policeman!


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (24 Jan 2016)

Here's some numbers for you, West Midlands Police 2010, strength 8200 Police Officers. Projected strength by 2020...5000 Police Officers.
About 3000 calls to service a day to deal with.
There is so few RPU left it's laughable, the TPO (traffic process office) makes the decisions on accident books and is utterly swamped.
Some days there's no one to got to 999 calls, the odds of anyone looking at this are about nil.
Not saying it's right but that's the way it is.


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> Here's some numbers for you, West Midlands Police 2010, strength 8200 Police Officers. Projected strength by 2020...5000 Police Officers.
> About 3000 calls to service a day to deal with.
> There is so few RPU left it's laughable, the TPO (traffic process office) makes the decisions on accident books and is utterly swamped.
> Some days there's no one to got to 999 calls, the odds of anyone looking at this are about nil.
> Not saying it's right but that's the way it is.



Projected numbers what about today? Is there a possibility that the police have more civvies on board?

I know very little about the Police other than the few I have cycled with over the years, but I am sure like in most other jobs there are some people who work hard and some who swing the leg.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (24 Jan 2016)

Civilian staff were the first to get hammered. The scale of loss is staggering, the numbers are about 7000 Police Officers at the moment. Less FSI, less administration support. Less training(none) less Police stations (Google Police Station closure) less of everything except crime, which is continuing to rise.
As a simple test how many Police Officer, RPU ,dog units etc do you think are on duty for a reasonably sized city 350000-400000 population on a night shift?


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

No where near enough, all the one's I know retired early.

I know there are too few police, but as a civilian they do look like there were ways to cut costs without cutting staff numbers so hugely. I feel that over many years the l pay and benefits were getting too generous when compared with other trades.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (24 Jan 2016)

Without wishing to hijack the thread..
Why too generous? Compared to what? Don't believe all that bollocks sprouted by the papers about 4 hours double time for taking a phone call and the rest of the made up shite. 
Police pay 14.25% in pension contributions, have had the pension changed so 60 is the expected retirement age. Still fairly young but how is a 59 year old meant to deal with violent offenders? Every public service is getting shafted, but the pay off for the public is there are very few Police left to deal with the issues raised by the OP.
I wish I could track down every clown that cuts up a cyclist (including me) but it's just impossible now.


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

They may pay in that amount but it is still not enough.

I hate the cut backs as much as you do.

How about backroom duty from 55 to 66.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (24 Jan 2016)

Unfortunately no back room left. Winsor recommendations and 25% budget cuts have seen to that.


----------



## screenman (24 Jan 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> Unfortunately no back room left. Winsor recommendations and 25% budget cuts have seen to that.



I know of a couple of retired police who have gone back in civvy roles, this was my chain of thought.

I do feel though even though the benefits are generous those that were promised them should get them.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> Here's some numbers for you, West Midlands Police 2010, strength 8200 Police Officers. Projected strength by 2020...5000 Police Officers.
> About 3000 calls to service a day to deal with.
> There is so few RPU left it's laughable, the TPO (traffic process office) makes the decisions on accident books and is utterly swamped.
> Some days there's no one to got to 999 calls, the odds of anyone looking at this are about nil.
> Not saying it's right but that's the way it is.


Well it is not 2020 yet, and the Police had time to interview me for an hour, a few officers had time to view the video, the decision was made to give the driver a section 171. A Police Officer then had time to drive to the offenders home, and play the video to the driver (who is also a motorcyclist) and his wife. The driver explained that he sounded his horn so the cyclist would get out of his way (into the door zone that cyclist and motorcyclist are told to avoid). The Officer accepted this as acceptable behaviour and decided not to give the driver the planned section 171. All the time needed had already been found and taken. Simple, the Police do still have plenty of time, they are just extremely bad at their job IMO


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Jan 2016)

Just a by-the-way tuppennyworth. The cuts in police budgets and manpower have been in the news for how long? Not the only public service to get shafted, by any means.

It just seems a little ... "ungracious", to blame the police for the effects of the cuts.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> ... the decision was made to give the driver a section 171.....


Ummm - what's a section 171? Nearest I found was http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/171, which .......... seems inappropriate!


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Just a by-the-way tuppennyworth. The cuts in police budgets and manpower have been in the news for how long? Not the only public service to get shafted, by any means.
> 
> It just seems a little ... "ungracious", to blame the police for the effects of the cuts.


I am not blaming the Police because of the cuts, the cuts did not effect the ability to investigate, they did investigate, they just decided after all the time invested not to give the planned section 171 because the driver warned me to get out of his way!


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Ummm - what's a section 171? Nearest I found was http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/171, which .......... seems inappropriate!


I was told it meant that if he drove to a standard this bad or worse within the next twelve months the car he did it in (does not have to be his car) would be taken, and if anyone else drives the car that passed me dangerously the car would be taken.


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> I was told it meant that if he drove to a standard this bad or worse within the next twelve months the car he did it in (does not have to be his car) would be taken, and if anyone else drives the car that passed me dangerously the car would be taken.


Hmmm - doesn't ring any bells ........except as a Section 59 warning (under the Police Reform Act 2002 [?])? 

I'm not being a pain - honest! The only reason I'm pushing you is that I'd like to know all these little hidden bits, and store them for appropriate use!


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmmm - doesn't ring any bells ........except as a Section 59 warning (under the Police Reform Act 2002 [?])?
> 
> I'm not being a pain - honest! The only reason I'm pushing you is that I'd like to know all these little hidden bits, and store them for appropriate use!


It kind of rang a bell with me, not that I knew the number, but I have heard this result before from other camera cyclists.
By the way, are you the camera cyclist on YouTube with a similar name to the one you have here?


----------



## growingvegetables (24 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> It kind of rang a bell with me, not that I knew the number, but I have heard this result before from other camera cyclists.
> By the way, are you the camera cyclist on YouTube with a similar name to the one you have here?


Shhh - yes.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (24 Jan 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Shhh - yes.


definitely a 171 I called the Police from my car with the dash cam running, I have just listened to the recording and confirmed that is what the Officer said.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (25 Jan 2016)

Someone is getting confused, the s171 is to establish the owner/driver at the time. The S59 is the offence. The crux of this is that you didn't get the outcome you wanted thus the police are bad.
My mistake S172 is to identify driver/owner s171 is the requirement to produce documents such as when a motorist is issued a HORT1.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (25 Jan 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> Someone is getting confused, the s171 is to establish the owner/driver at the time. The S59 is the offence. The crux of this is that you didn't get the outcome you wanted thus the police are bad.
> My mistake S172 is to identify driver/owner s171 is the requirement to produce documents such as when a motorist is issued a HORT1.


It appears you are simply unhappy because the Police are being criticized, I think the Police are bad at there job because they told me the pass was so bad that the driver would be charged, but failed to charge. I also think the Police are bad at there job because my previous two complaints that were recognised as even worse by the Police were somehow separately "lost" until just after the two weeks were up in which they were able to press charges. Please try not to prejudge people, you always look like a fool, but then you prejudge and are wrong you look like an absolute .....


----------



## Markymark (25 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Yes they can. There have been a number of criminal convictions in England and Scotland using camera evidence from cyclists, including a case involving Martin Porter QC.


Where they based on the events that would need calibration (eg distance and speed) or where the captured events that could not be disputed such as what the driver said or whether or not they indicated/changed lanes/left or right hooked etc?


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (25 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Where they based on the events that would need calibration (eg distance and speed) or where the captured events that could not be disputed such as what the driver said or whether or not they indicated/changed lanes/left or right hooked etc?


The need for calibration is only in your mind. The Police have never told me my cameras need calibration. Have they told you anything of the kind? If they have, who was it and were, Station, badge numbers will do. Cheers!


----------



## Spinney (25 Jan 2016)

*Mod note*: time to stop bickering, please. This is a serious part of the forum, not the place for arguments like this.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (25 Jan 2016)

Spinney said:


> *Mod note*: time to stop bickering, please. This is a serious part of the forum, not the place for arguments like this.


Please feel free to delete at will, this is way off topic

*Mod note:* as TVL has deleted his own posts I've deleted the rest of the argument, as the remaining posts made even less sense than they did before!


----------



## Bollo (25 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> *Mod note:* as TVL has deleted his own posts I've deleted the rest of the argument, *as the remaining posts made even less sense than they did before*!


Wow!


----------



## glenn forger (25 Jan 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter


----------



## glenn forger (25 Jan 2016)

Google his name.


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (25 Jan 2016)

Just been reading the thread about this from 2014. Previous for poss intent to supply, if he gets potted for the dangerous drive x3 he's down the steps. Fingers crossed.


----------



## glenn forger (25 Jan 2016)

It's an unusual defence, but who knows how it will go.


----------



## Origamist (25 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Well it is not 2020 yet, and the Police had time to interview me for an hour, a few officers had time to view the video, the decision was made to give the driver a section 171. A Police Officer then had time to drive to the offenders home, and play the video to the driver (who is also a motorcyclist) and his wife. The driver explained that he sounded his horn so the cyclist would get out of his way (into the door zone that cyclist and motorcyclist are told to avoid). *The Officer accepted this as acceptable behaviour and decided not to give the driver the planned section 171. *All the time needed had already been found and taken. Simple, the Police do still have plenty of time, they are just extremely bad at their job IMO



That's idiotic reasoning, but it doesn't surprise me. Did you have the energy to argue the toss?

On the plus side, the driver has at least had a visit from the police and he's now on their radar.


----------



## derrick (25 Jan 2016)

Origamist said:


> That's idiotic reasoning, but it doesn't surprise me. Did you have the energy to argue the toss?
> 
> On the plus side, the driver has at least had a visit from the police and he's now on their radar.



Bet he is shaking in his boots.


----------



## Origamist (25 Jan 2016)

derrick said:


> Bet he is shaking in his boots.



I doubt it.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (25 Jan 2016)

Origamist said:


> That's idiotic reasoning, but it doesn't surprise me. Did you have the energy to argue the toss?
> 
> On the plus side, the driver has at least had a visit from the police and he's now on their radar.


Yes, poor guy knows he must go to the trouble of sounding his horn before driving dangerously, or he may or may not be in trouble


----------



## Origamist (25 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Yes, poor guy knows he must go to the trouble of sounding his horn before driving dangerously, or he may or may not be in trouble



I've just bought an air zound as my get out of jail free card...


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (25 Jan 2016)

Well, I know when I take photos of dangerous obstructions, I get the "terror threat" speech and the wanting to know my name and details. 

I don't think there's much inclination to uphold decent standards of vehicle use by South Yorkshire Police..

I'm not sure how any vehicle leaving their car park (in photo 2) can see cyclists coming downhill from the left, behind their hired minibus


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (25 Jan 2016)




----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (26 Jan 2016)

This is a the previous complaint that I made to the Police about a dangerous driver:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFYFZ0hZxFM

The Police claimed they lost the complaint, they did however manage to find it again just too late to be able to charge the driver! As was the case with the complaint I made before this one!


----------



## Markymark (26 Jan 2016)

User said:


> You make a fair few such complaints?


I had a number of posts removed but i shall repost my question as I think it's fair. 

Is it possible the police don't like you?


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (26 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> I had a number of posts removed but i shall repost my question as I think it's fair.
> 
> Is it possible the police don't like you?


No, they just do not like working for their pay


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jan 2016)

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...deliberately/story-28608113-detail/story.html


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (26 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Charge him with what? It was a close pass - but that's not an offence.


“Driving without due care and attention”
The requirement is that the driver is shown to have driven below the standard of a careful and considerate driver, one example is "

driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...osecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/index.html#a30


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (26 Jan 2016)

User13710 said:


> And from New Zealand?


Five in 18 months of being back in the UK, all backed up with video


----------



## Markymark (26 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> No, they just do not like working for their pay


Hmm. I can see with your attitude how I might be right.


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (26 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Hmm. I can see with your attitude how I might be right.


Getting off topic, you are getting a bit trolly again, you know what they say, "Do not feed the Trolls"


----------



## Markymark (26 Jan 2016)

TheVexatiousLitigant said:


> Getting off topic, you are getting a bit trolly again, you know what they say, "Do not feed the Trolls"


No it is bang on thread. It is about why the police are not siding with you.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jan 2016)

More than a year in chokey, result:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/motorist-jailed-after-driving-wrong-7257364


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (27 Jan 2016)

User said:


> I know the CPS guidance (very well in fact). But a close overtake in itself does not necessarily constitute driving without due care and attention.



haha that's one hell of a Butt-hurt driver 

"Prosecutor Michael *Butt* told the court: "This was a deliberate act by a driver who either wished to scare the living daylights out of the cyclist or perhaps, even worse, run them off the road."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/motorist-jailed-after-driving-wrong-7257364


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (27 Jan 2016)

User said:


> I know the CPS guidance (very well in fact). But a close overtake in itself does not necessarily constitute driving without due care and attention.


True, the Driver does have the chance to avoid charges if his reasoning for the careless act is valid, and not in itself another act demonstrating they are driving below what is expected of a "Careful and considerate driver" Careless Driving charges are surprisingly easy to enforce given the amount of drivers that seem to think a steel cage will protect them from anything


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (27 Jan 2016)

glenn forger said:


> The linked report says the driver's siblings died almost a decade ago, which means it's unlikely they could offer a substantive alibi.


This fits perfectly with the stereotype of drivers that deliberately drive very close to vulnerable road users, I only hope the Judge has passed on to his colleagues the enormity of his error of judgement in not locking him up when he had the chance. 100% better = so back to the person he was without an addiction, just another lowlife that needs locking away.


----------



## CopperCyclist (29 Jan 2016)

Incontinentia Buttocks said:


> View attachment 117042



This post isn't worthy of a debate. Fairly clear the OP has his stance, and isn't really interested in hearing from anyone who doesn't agree. 

So instead, I'm simply going to highly criticise Incontinentia for misuse of a meme. That meme should always finish "because aliens".


----------



## TheVexatiousLitigant (30 Jan 2016)

Same junction only with a Careful and Considerate driver 
View: https://youtu.be/E0XINHR-Azk


----------

