# Police ask for help to catch driver targeting cyclists...



## TwickenhamCyclist (11 May 2014)

Quote:
*Cyclists in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire are being urged to help police bring to justice a motorist caught on film veering across the road to pass an oncoming rider with just inches to spare in what appears to be a deliberate and highly dangerous close pass. *

*Link to road cc story*


----------



## glenn forger (11 May 2014)

Psycho. Take his car. Immediate Section 59. that's like pranking someone by aiming a loaded gun at their head.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 May 2014)

As an aside...
Yet again a helmet camera proves it's use!


----------



## ianrauk (11 May 2014)

Oh my word.. what a farking peanut. That driver needs to be put in jail and his license taken away for good.


----------



## Hip Priest (11 May 2014)

Terrible.

I've had that happen to me. Utterly terrifying, and like Glenn says, it's as much of a threat as someone pulling a knife or gun on you.


----------



## KneesUp (11 May 2014)

Surely the police can make enquires with the owner of the black/blue Peugeot 206 2.0 diesel Hdi (90bhp) registration number V496 ELT as to who was driving it on the 20th April 2014?


----------



## glenn forger (11 May 2014)

YESV496ELT *IS* showing as insured on the Motor Insurance Database


----------



## Crankarm (11 May 2014)

Plod, if they can be ar$ed, can easily go and bang on the door at the address of the registered owner. I'd say it's at least a s.18 OAPA with intent or attempted murder for each occasion he, or she, has pulled the stunt. I'd shoot the driver who is doing this, if of course it were legal.


----------



## albion (11 May 2014)

"The husband of one of those cyclists told road.cc via Facebook that police proceedings are now under way against the motorist."

That 'independent witness' thing is darn weird though.
Someone tries to kill you and PC plod almost said 'not interested'.


----------



## Pikey (11 May 2014)

I think that's the b@5tard that tried to run into me at a pinch point and threw his drink all over me last Sunday on a national speed limit just outside melksham.

I'll be popping over to see plod after work tomorrow me thinks...


----------



## Shut Up Legs (11 May 2014)

albion said:


> "The husband of one of those cyclists told road.cc via Facebook that police proceedings are now under way against the motorist."
> 
> That 'independent witness' thing is darn weird though.
> Someone tries to kill you and PC plod almost said 'not interested'.


That bothers me, too . The video makes it obvious what occurred, and would be very difficult to fake.


----------



## Nigeyy (12 May 2014)

From what I read, it appears the woman quoted in the article just called in after experiencing a similar incident -without video or physical evidence. While I could see you could argue you need a corroborating witness if this just came out of the blue (i.e. you just didn't make it up to get a driver in trouble just because they annoyed you) she said she mentioned the video (or so I thought from the article anyway). Given that, you'd think she should be taken more seriously. 

It also begs the question: if you report someone tried to knife/shoot you without other witnesses or physical evidence, would they also not take you seriously until you had a witness? I know it's not the same, but it can't be very often someone says they swerved from the other side of the road. I think if someone reported that to me I'd be inclined to take it very seriously.

And yes, this is definitely an advantage for having a head-cam without a doubt.



victor said:


> That bothers me, too . The video makes it obvious what occurred, and would be very difficult to fake.


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Hopefully he gets more than a slap on the wrist, although from personal experience of Wiltshire police I doubt it.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (12 May 2014)

Nigeyy said:


> From what I read, it appears the woman quoted in the article just called in after experiencing a similar incident -without video or physical evidence. While I could see you could argue you need a corroborating witness if this just came out of the blue (i.e. you just didn't make it up to get a driver in trouble just because they annoyed you) she said she mentioned the video (or so I thought from the article anyway). Given that, you'd think she should be taken more seriously.
> 
> It also begs the question: if you report someone tried to knife/shoot you without other witnesses or physical evidence, would they also not take you seriously until you had a witness? I know it's not the same, but it can't be very often someone says they swerved from the other side of the road. I think if someone reported that to me I'd be inclined to take it very seriously.
> 
> And yes, this is definitely an advantage for having a head-cam without a doubt.



Years ago I had a horrible run in with a van driver - he didn't like the fact i was correctly positioned at a roundabout (middle of very narrow right hand lane when turning right) - he tried to run me off the road and then threatened to beat me up when I complained. I remembered the reg etc. and naively went to the police station. I said I had just been physically threatened and a guy had tried to hurt me. Policeman sounded rather concerned, I was pretty shaken and out of breath - and he got out some paperwork and started taking my details. He then asked me exactly what happened and as soon as I mentioned I had been on a bike and the bloke was in a van he stopped, looked a little annoyed and said something like 'well that's just a traffic incident' and handed me a different form 'for the traffic division' and basically told me to foxtrot Oscar. 
Its the old adage - walk around with a steel bar and smash someone over the head with it and your done for murder, take the precaution of attaching the steel bar yo your car and...


----------



## fossyant (12 May 2014)

I'm sure if nothing happens, and the location of the driver is found, the car may be missing a few essential items in a short space of time.


----------



## Sara_H (12 May 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> As an aside...
> Yet again a helmet camera proves it's use!


I bought a camera after an incident a few weeks ago where a driver very clearly drove at me deliberately and then verbally abused me for quite some time. 
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/worst-episode-of-agression-yet-really-shook-up.152582/#post-2993838
Really frightened the life out of me. I reported it to the police, but with no injuries, no footage they weren't prepared to look into it at all.


----------



## MikeG (12 May 2014)

That doesn't play properly for me, for some reason. The stills look awful, though.


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2014)

Sara_H said:


> I bought a camera after an incident a few weeks ago where a driver very clearly drove at me deliberately and then verbally abused me for quite some time.
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/worst-episode-of-agression-yet-really-shook-up.152582/#post-2993838
> Really frightened the life out of me. *I reported it to the police, but with no injuries, no footage they weren't prepared to look into it at all*.



F_ckers. You know that this means no crime recorded, keeps the crime figures low, gives the impression that they are doing a good job which is sooooo not true.


----------



## Sara_H (12 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> F_ckers. You know that this means no crime recorded, keeps the crime figures low, gives the impression that they are doing a good job which is sooooo not true.


I know, frustrating.


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2014)

Sara_H said:


> I know, frustrating.



I sympathsize. Police are part of the problem not the solution.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> Hopefully he gets more than a slap on the wrist, although from personal experience of Wiltshire police I doubt it.


The CPS decide if the case goes ahead and the courts decide the punishment, just saying


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> I sympathsize. Police are part of the problem not the solution.



Crankarm seem to have lost the title of this thread somewhat which was about the police asking the public to assist them to catch a dangerous driver and turned it into some anti-police rant (as usual).

Isn't the title actually showing the police are taking this seriously and trying to deal with it?

If that's being part of the problem then what's the solution?


----------



## glenn forger (12 May 2014)

the police record with regard to RTCs involving cyclists is very poor, the CTC have recorded over four thousand complaint. I hope the police do something and don't just shrug if the reg keeper refuses to identify the driver.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> I hope the police do something and don't just shrug if the reg keeper refuses to identify the driver.



Thumbscrews or waterboarding perhaps?


----------



## cbs (12 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> F_ckers. You know that this means no crime recorded, keeps the crime figures low, gives the impression that they are doing a good job which is sooooo not true.



I know that a lot of these threads turn into a "police not doing their job" thing, but I just have to say that not every police officer is a lazy jobsworth who fiddles the figures to make themselves and the force look good. I am sure that the majority are good people who really want to do their job of upholding the law. The problem is that the target culture cascading down on them from above (ie from government) is driving a lot of what they can and can't do.

It's also a difficult job to do as someone has already said, where there are no witnesses to corroborate a story - imagine if you were wrongly accused and the police assumed that you were lying because they believed the alleged victim? I think we sometimes see things as "right" and "wrong" and expect the police to just "know" without evidence...

Note that I have not looked at this specific case yet, so the above is not based on that, but is a general observation on the police force. I also fully understand that there are many people (cyclists) who have been abused and assaulted and have not been able to get justice and they will have a different view.


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> The CPS decide if the case goes ahead and the courts decide the punishment, just saying


The police decide if warrants investigation and then goes to the CPS for further decision makers to decide.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> The police decide if warrants investigation and then goes to the CPS for further decision makers to decide.


I know, your comment was in relation to punishment i.e. A slap of the wrist as you put it


----------



## Arjimlad (12 May 2014)

Here's hoping that this dangerous idiot gets into a lot of trouble...preferably with the Police.


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> I know, your comment was in relation to punishment i.e. A slap of the wrist as you put it


A slap on the wrist wouldn't involve the CPS, the police might send a letter or go for a visit to tell the culprit not to be a naughty boy/girl and play fair.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> A slap on the wrist wouldn't involve the CPS, the police might send a letter or go for a visit to tell the culprit not to be a naughty boy/girl and play fair.


For dangerous driving....err I don't think so!! It's a mandatory CPS referral for a disposal option


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> For dangerous driving....err I don't think so!! It's a mandatory CPS referral for a disposal option


But your assuming the police call it dangerous driving.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 May 2014)

The video is showing as private for me. Is it available anywhere else?

GC


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> But your assuming the police call it dangerous driving.


What else would you call driving deliberately across the road at a cyclist on several occasions!!!???


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> What else would you call driving deliberately across the road at a cyclist on several occasions!!!???


It doesn't matter what I call it.


----------



## fossyant (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> But your assuming the police call it dangerous driving.


 
Try Road CC - they twittered it.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> It doesn't matter what I call it.



Actually it does if you would call yourself an ordinary 'careful and competent driver' as that's the standard the police apply to decide


----------



## ufkacbln (12 May 2014)

Don't get me wrong in this, as I understand Sara H's position and share her feelings

However there is another side to this.

I had an incident where I took objection to a left hook and the driver then complained to management that I had been aggressive, violent and abusive. It would have been very difficultto prove otherwise, and I would have felt aggrieved if they had simply taken their evidence.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> the police record with regard to RTCs involving cyclists is very poor, the CTC have recorded over four thousand complaint. I hope the police do something and don't just shrug if the reg keeper refuses to identify the driver.




I always reckon thatthere is a simple solution to this:

1. So...... you don't know who was driving the vehicle atthe time of the incident
2. So... you cannot thereforeactually prove the vehicle was insured at the time
3. As you cannot prove the vehicle was insured it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it was not isured..... Your car is impounded.
4. Please come come back with proof that the driver at the time of the incident was insured

Then and only then will the car be released.


----------



## Sara_H (12 May 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't get me wrong in this, as I understand Sara H's position and share her feelings
> 
> However there is another side to this.
> 
> I had an incident where I took objection to a left hook and the driver then complained to management that I had been aggressive, violent and abusive. It would have been very difficultto prove otherwise, and I would have felt aggrieved if they had simply taken their evidence.


I guess its the reluctance to investigate a complaint at all that rankles. In my case I had no reg number, no witnesses no nothing for the police to go on. But we see examples frequently where there is footage that the police just write off. I guess if they'd wanted to, they could have looked for CCTV footage, but as I wasn't injured I'm not surprised that they didn't. 
The case in the OP seems extroidinary because the police are acting!


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (12 May 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I always reckon thatthere is a simple solution to this:
> 
> 1. So...... you don't know who was driving the vehicle atthe time of the incident
> 2. So... you cannot thereforeactually prove the vehicle was insured at the time
> ...


Genius, your wasted on here!


----------



## Archie_tect (12 May 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The video is showing as private for me. Is it available anywhere else?
> 
> GC


I can't run it either.


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Actually it does if you would call yourself an ordinary 'careful and competent driver' as that's the standard the police apply to decide


You seem to live in a very idealistic world, it is very common for dangerous driving to be treated as just careless.
As someone who has experience of Wiltshire police I think they will go for the easiest option for them.


----------



## HLaB (12 May 2014)

Hope the camera got his face not just the reg, if not, the cynic in me thinks he'll get of on the old lame excuse 'it wasn't me, it was my mate driving and I'm not obliged to tell you his name' :-(


----------



## glenn forger (12 May 2014)

Maybe the cops asked for the clip to be taken down. Maybe the driver did.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> You seem to live in a very idealistic world, it is very common for dangerous driving to be treated as just careless.
> As someone who has experience of Wiltshire police I think they will go for the easiest option for them.


Every situation is different and applying blind prejudice before the case has been finalised is very negative and narrow minded. In my view they are really trying hard to bring this nutter to book by releasing this out to the media etc. You clearly have an axe to grind with Wiltshire Police so it would be more productive to pursue said grievance with whoever dealt with your incident rather than tarring every other officer/ the whole Force with the same brush


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Maybe the cops asked for the clip to be taken down. Maybe the driver did.


Once a suspect is identified all media video and pictures will be withdrawn by the police for legal reasons


----------



## glenn forger (12 May 2014)

Ah, then it could be good news.

The police treat video clips strangely, I've heard lots of different responses, some deny footage can be accepted, but I've seen one force say it's ok to initially put up footage so long as you don't title the clip *OMG, LOOK AT THIS NUTTER!!!*


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 May 2014)

According to the rider involved, "proceedings have commenced".

GC


----------



## sheddy (12 May 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I always reckon thatthere is a simple solution to this:
> 
> 1. So...... you don't know who was driving the vehicle atthe time of the incident
> 2. So... you cannot thereforeactually prove the vehicle was insured at the time
> ...



Hey ! this is is far too good to go to waste - can we all pass it on to CTC, Roadsafe, British Cycling, and the ACPO etc etc


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Every situation is different and applying blind prejudice before the case has been finalised is very negative and narrow minded. In my view they are really trying hard to bring this nutter to book by releasing this out to the media etc. You clearly have an axe to grind with Wiltshire Police so it would be more productive to pursue said grievance with whoever dealt with your incident rather than tarring every other officer/ the whole Force with the same brush


Right.


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2014)

Big Nick might well be a copper or a civilian working in a police force.


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> According to the rider involved, "proceedings have commenced".
> 
> GC



Allegedly a number of cyclists have been targeted.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Big Nick might well be a copper or a civilian working in a police force.


Or he might just be someone who doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about the police


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Or he might just be someone who doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about the police



Or has never had reason to report anything to them that was met with indolence and an unsatisfactory frankly sub standard response.


----------



## Big Nick (12 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Or has never had reason to report anything to them that was met with indolence and an unsatisfactory frankly sub standard response.


Oh grow up, I once had an incompetent dentist drill into a nerve it doesn't mean I think they're all crap, I once reported my mum had had a stroke via 999 and got the run around for 45 minutes before they sent an ambulance doesn't mean the whole of the NHS is crap.....make a complaint at the time then suck it up and move on


----------



## glenn forger (13 May 2014)

Nick, police failures with regard to cyclists are documented:

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/sites...CTC Road Justice - the role of the police.pdf

Aiden Forster, Bradford, West Yorkshire, 
July 2012
Enthusiastic cyclist Aiden was cycling up a hill when he was hit
from behind by a 4x4 driver. Aiden suffered multiple vertebral
fractures as a result of the collision. He was in hospital for 5
days and off work for 4 months. He could not sit down for
months, which made any form of travel very difficult. Due to
his injuries he has not been able to take care of his two young
children since the incident.
The attending police officer implicitly blamed Aiden for the
incident stating: “you cyclists take your lives into your own
hands”. Despite a number of vehicles present at the scene, the
police did not take any witness statements. The police accepted the driver’s explanation that he had
been ‘dazzled by sunlight’ and therefore hadn’t seen Aiden on the hill, but the police did not analyse
the sun’s position in the sky at the time of the collision to verify this claim or comment that the driver
should have adjusted their speed if they could not see the road ahead of them.


----------



## Crankarm (13 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Nick, police failures with regard to cyclists are documented:
> 
> http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/sites/roadjustice.org.uk/files/CTC Road Justice - the role of the police.pdf
> 
> ...



Glenn - You won't get through to him. Nick is either a troll or an idiot or both.


----------



## Thomk (13 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Glenn - You won't get through to him. Nick is either a troll or an idiot or both.


That does not seem fair.


----------



## Big Nick (13 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Glenn - You won't get through to him. Nick is either a troll or an idiot or both.


I won't resort to insults as it tends to be an indicator you cannot adequately present your point of view when I feel I can
The issue is Glenn we rarely hear a balanced debate on a subject such as this.
I am not blind to cases of bad practice by the police but I am not naive enough to think those cases define a whole police service.
I also object to a thread that highlights how the police are in fact doing what the likes of Crankarm complains about (trying to obtain justice for cyclists) is turned back around by him to criticise them borne out of him having a very large chip on his shoulder about his perception of an incident he was involved in previously.

It's not a case of 'getting through to me' I have the open mindedness to treat each individual case on its own merits and wait until its conclusion to then draw mine.


----------



## gaz (13 May 2014)

HLaB said:


> Hope the camera got his face not just the reg, if not, the cynic in me thinks he'll get of on the old lame excuse 'it wasn't me, it was my mate driving and I'm not obliged to tell you his name' :-(


I've actually had some good results where the owner didn't provide details of the driver. In fact, in some I think the penalty was harsher than if they provided details.



Big Nick said:


> Once a suspect is identified all media video and pictures will be withdrawn by the police for legal reasons


Oh really? what legal reasons would those be. Note that I have had several prosecutions where the videos where in the public domain, commented about on various news sites and the videos where used in court to aid in securing a prosecution. Not once was I asked by the police to remove my footage from the internet for any reason. And they were fully aware of the online video.
I believe it was you the said the below.


Big Nick said:


> Every situation is different and applying blind prejudice before the case has been finalised is very negative and narrow minded...


----------



## glenn forger (13 May 2014)

Let's hope matters are progressing, with so many people coming forward and some media attention maybe the cops will feel some pressure to send out a strong statement.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 May 2014)

Thomk said:


> That does not seem fair.


it's often the case... those who tend to 'cry troll' appear to be under the illusion that their own posts never go so low as to be considered 'trolling'... it's sad and funny at the same time. The poor deluded souls.


----------



## Big Nick (13 May 2014)

_


gaz said:



Oh really? what legal reasons would those be. Note that I have had several prosecutions where the videos where in the public domain, commented about on various news sites and the videos where used in court to aid in securing a prosecution. Not once was I asked by the police to remove my footage from the internet for any reason. And they were fully aware of the online video.
I believe it was you the said the below.

Click to expand...


Once a suspect has been identified the police will pull any pictures and footage they posted up so as to not prejudice the trial. 
They have strict rules in regards identification and showing of visual images once a suspect has been identified under PACE
Not sure I know what you're on about with the last comment/my quote though??_


----------



## ufkacbln (13 May 2014)

sheddy said:


> Hey ! this is is far too good to go to waste - can we all pass it on to CTC, Roadsafe, British Cycling, and the ACPO etc etc




Feel free


----------



## gaz (13 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> _
> Once a suspect has been identified the police will pull any pictures and footage they posted up so as to not prejudice the trial.
> They have strict rules in regards identification and showing of visual images once a suspect has been identified under PACE
> Not sure I know what you're on about with the last comment/my quote though??_


That's funny, because I have several videos that show that isn't the case with the MET and the CPS in London. Several of these where high profile with lots of views before the trial.

As for my last comment. What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.


----------



## Big Nick (13 May 2014)

They can't stop you plastering it all over the net but they'll pull anything they've put up owing to PACE Codes Of Practice re identification etc. Also they want magistrates and jurors who know nothing of the case outside of the courtroom ideally otherwise they risk a mis-trial

And I still haven't a clue what your last sentence means in relation to my quote you originally referred to


----------



## gaz (13 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> They can't stop you plastering it all over the net but they'll pull anything they've put up owing to PACE Codes Of Practice re identification etc. Also they want magistrates and jurors who know nothing of the case outside of the courtroom ideally otherwise they risk a mis-trial
> 
> And I still haven't a clue what your last sentence means in relation to my quote you originally referred to


Considering the police didn't upload the original video footage which you were referring to. Has it been taken down because of what you have previously said?
Who knows, all my posts are about is that what you said previously is not always the case, hence my last sentence as well.


----------



## Big Nick (13 May 2014)

You immediately seemed on the offensive Gaz for reasons best known to yourself with your 'oh really' and seem to have taken offence to what I said

My original comment re removal of video and photos was in reference to any the police have instigated into the media, perhaps I should of been clearer on that but it's done in the interests of justice

You'll always find the police pulling their articles once they have a suspect but they have very little control over what Joe Public does with the video if its them who have provided it. They would normally ask the 'owner' of it to take it down if they knew it had been posted up to try and ensure it and comments made around it are not up on the net for people involved in deciding guilt to be tainted with.


----------



## gaz (14 May 2014)

Big Nick said:


> You immediately seemed on the offensive Gaz for reasons best known to yourself with your 'oh really' and seem to have taken offence to what I said
> 
> My original comment re removal of video and photos was in reference to any the police have instigated into the media, perhaps I should of been clearer on that but it's done in the interests of justice
> 
> You'll always find the police pulling their articles once they have a suspect but they have very little control over what Joe Public does with the video if its them who have provided it. They would normally ask the 'owner' of it to take it down if they knew it had been posted up to try and ensure it and comments made around it are not up on the net for people involved in deciding guilt to be tainted with.


You didn't make that clear in your initial comment.


----------



## Big Nick (14 May 2014)

gaz said:


> You didn't make that clear in your initial comment.



I've just said that!!

Bloomin hell, lighten up!


----------



## BSRU (21 May 2014)

From Wiltshire Police Twitter account.
"We arrested a 38 year-old male yesterday on suspicion of dangerous driving in relation to online video showing car swerving towards cyclist."


----------



## MikeG (21 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> From Wiltshire Police Twitter account.
> "We arrested a 38 year-old male yesterday on suspicion of dangerous driving in relation to online video showing car swerving towards cyclist."


Excellent!


----------



## BSRU (21 May 2014)

From Wiltshire Police Twitter account.
"We'd like to thank the public and in particular the local #*cycling* community for bringing the incident to our attention"


----------



## glenn forger (21 May 2014)

Result. Massive respect to the Local Cycling Community, God bless em.


----------



## Hip Priest (21 May 2014)

BSRU said:


> From Wiltshire Police Twitter account.
> "We arrested a 38 year-old male yesterday on suspicion of dangerous driving in relation to online video showing car swerving towards cyclist."


 
Hooray!

Surprised at the suspect's age though.


----------



## fossyant (21 May 2014)

Good stuff, and now for the motorcycle idiot !


----------



## growingvegetables (21 May 2014)

Hip Priest said:


> Surprised at the suspect's age though.


Sadly, I'm not. I've had more than a few "fat'n 50" guys driving straight at me.


----------



## jarlrmai (21 May 2014)

late 30's and driving a 5 year old hatchback, 70% nobber chance.


----------



## Spinney (21 May 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> I always reckon thatthere is a simple solution to this:
> 
> 1. So...... you don't know who was driving the vehicle atthe time of the incident
> *2. So... you cannot therefore actually prove the vehicle was insured at the time*
> ...


Unless it's insured for 'any driver'...


----------



## fossyant (21 May 2014)

growingvegetables said:


> Sadly, I'm not. I've had more than a few "fat'n 50" guys driving straight at me.



Yup. Pull out on you, you say thanks for that, they give you a load of abuse. I suppose you have to leave it at that due to worries you'll cause them a heart attack.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2014)

growingvegetables said:


> Sadly, I'm not. I've had more than a few "fat'n 50" guys driving straight at me.



If you look at the stats... these are the most dangerous group whn it comes to the everyday offences


----------



## jonny jeez (22 May 2014)

fossyant said:


> Good stuff, and now for the motorcycle idiot !


Perhaps he should have a link to this thread.


----------



## BSRU (9 Feb 2015)

An update from the local rag.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/..._driver_accused_of_running_cyclists_off_road/


----------



## glenn forger (9 Feb 2015)

If he pleads not guilty and is then found guilty he'll face a harsher penalty. Unless the jury all hate cyclists.


----------



## Origamist (9 Feb 2015)

Cheers for the update.

Any one want to open a book on the likely verdict and, if guilty, the punishment?!


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Feb 2015)

He'll probably say the sun was in his eyes and the driving jury will acquit.


----------



## Origamist (9 Feb 2015)

Arjimlad said:


> He'll probably say the sun was in his eyes and the driving jury will acquit.


 
5 to 1 on as the jury will ignore corresponding cycle cam film of a cloudy day.

10 to 1 on - the jury will acquit after identifying a coruscating meteorite that temporarily blinded the driver by using a horoscope from around the time.


----------



## TheJDog (9 Feb 2015)

Is http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/1784004.dean_goble_jailed_for_drug_dealing/ this the same guy?


----------



## glenn forger (9 Feb 2015)

TheJDog said:


> Is http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/1784004.dean_goble_jailed_for_drug_dealing/ this the same guy?



Yep. I posted that link, it's gone!


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Feb 2015)

Yeah most likely the same guy, the ages would match up, guess very little has changed for Dean eh.

I don't think his previous will be brought up in this case though.


----------



## albion (9 Feb 2015)

A well known family to the local rag.

http://wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/search/?search=goble


----------



## EthelF (10 Feb 2015)

jarlrmai said:


> I don't think his previous will be brought up in this case though.



As his previous conviction is not related to this case it can't be brought up in court. But should he be convicted the judge can take it into consideration during sentencing as he would not be eligible for any discount for being "of good character".


----------



## TheJDog (10 Feb 2015)

Also, his previous must affect how the police and CPS deal with it before it gets to court.


----------



## spen666 (10 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> If he pleads not guilty and is then found guilty he'll face a harsher penalty. Unless the jury all hate cyclists.


 I don't think it matters on sentence whether the jury love or hate him.
Sentencing is a function of the judge, not a function of the jury

On a minor legal point, he will not face a harsher penalty for pleading not guilty. Discount is given for guilty pleas, not taken away for NG pleas. The end result may appear the same ie he gets a lower sentence on a G plea than if convicted after trial


----------



## glenn forger (10 Feb 2015)

"I don't think it matters on sentence whether the jury love or hate him."

Yes, I expect the jury could find him not guilty and it won't make any difference to the sentence. Do you have to get up really early to fit so much stupid into the day?


----------



## CopperCyclist (10 Feb 2015)

Big Nick said:


> I am not blind to cases of bad practice by the police but I am not naive enough to think those cases define a whole police service.



The problem is simple and in no way at all limited to cycling*. The media and worryingly more recently, the public too, absolutely love to spin stories based on police corruption and police incompetence. Stories about police simply doing their job, or doing a good job however never get written about. 

I have dealt with far too many cyclist RTCs in my service to recount, ranging from damage onlys all the way up to fatals, and I have had no complaints - I've also never had any acknowledgment of 'a good job' (nor felt I needed one btw). My jobs didn't make the papers (except the fatals), and they weren't held up there as an example of how the police work. On many of these jobs, the evidential requirements of our justice system meant we didn't get the result we wanted. 

Spread it out further and my colleagues on shift have dealt with just as many (there used to be 50 on our shift, it's now fallen to 25) and in all those jobs, I know of only one where the cyclist wasn't happy and made a complaint - he said he was going to the local paper but I never saw the story. The complaint came to nothing. 

"The police" as a whole are not useless. We are sometimes restricted by the rules we have to follow, and by the heavy evidential requirements of our system. There are, and anyways will be exceptions where you deal with a throughly useless officer - these should be dealt with by complaints, they should be raised by the media, they should be tackled to prevent the same thing ever happening again, but they should not be taken as an example of what will usually happen.


*make up a subject - domestics, harassment, theft etc - and Google for police incompetence on that matter and I guarantee you hits. There is no anti cycling conspiracy.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Feb 2015)

I have no doubt copper cyclist is conscientious and professional. That said, it's a fact that the CTC compiled reports of police failures, sloppiness and general ineptitude when dealing with cyclist RTCs. 



> The report, written jointly by the HM Inspectorates of Constabulary (HMIC) and of the Crown Prosecution Service (HMCPSI), looked at how road deaths were handled in a sample of six police force areas.
> 
> It particularly criticised the police’s provision of victim support (found to be flawed in 75% of cases), a lack of training for prosecutors, poor record-keeping on CPS internal decision-making, and frequent changes of personnel handling cases – only 38% of cases were handled by the same prosecutor from start to finish.









_Since 1985, there has been a 77% drop in convictions in England and Wales for bad driving offences, despite only a 58% drop in killed and serious (KSI) injuries on Britain's roads._
_
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150204...tough-police-prosecutors-handling-road-deaths_


----------



## CopperCyclist (10 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I have no doubt copper cyclist is conscientious and professional. That said, it's a fact that the CTC compiled reports of police failures, sloppiness and general ineptitude when dealing with cyclist RTCs.



And without seeing the actual report, I have no doubt all the faults raised were accurate and needed highlighting to try and avoid it happening again. Did the report however look at every cyclist death and see a disproportionate weighting against the badly dealt with, or did it just focus on the failures? I suspect and would hope that there would be a significant number of incidents dealt with professionally and appropriately. 

The graph you link is interesting - is it just cycling deaths or all road deaths (not that it matters)? 

Consideration should also be given that traffic police have been absolutely destroyed by the financial environment. We used to have two traffic officers on every shift, which would mean about 20 or more across our force area, with them nearby and ready to respond when you need them. 

Now we don't have them on shift, they been centralised and we have six across the force (if none are sick /on holiday), and never nearby. They can also no longer run two serious incidents at the same time. 

Bearing that in mind, the fact there are 77 percent less convictions when there should be 58 percent less isn't at all surprising if the cuts to traffic nationwide of about 60 percent is understandable. Note - not acceptable, not in the slightest - but understandable.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Feb 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> The graph you link is interesting - is it just cycling deaths or all road deaths (not that it matters)?
> 
> Consideration should also be given that traffic police have been absolutely destroyed by the financial environment. We used to have two traffic officers on every shift, which would mean about 20 or more across our force area, with them nearby and ready to respond when you need them.
> 
> ...



It's all deaths I think. They should just have "Causing Death by Driving" and let the court settle on culpability, the reluctance of juries to convict is well know, "There but for the Grace of God.."

You're absolutely right about trafpol, that was the point made on Today this morning, it started with Blair moving trafpol to street crime, chavs nicking each others' mobiles, and the numbers have been slashed since then. Law-breaking motorists are extremely unlikely to get caught. Only 3000 speed cameras cover the entire country. At any one point, only 8 trafpol cover the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk. 

If you compare the number of drivers who admit using a mobile at the wheel, for instance, with conviction rates fewer than 2% get caught.


----------



## CopperCyclist (10 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It particularly criticised the police’s provision of victim support (found to be flawed in 75% of cases), a lack of training for prosecutors, poor record-keeping on CPS internal decision-making, and frequent changes of personnel handling cases – only 38% of cases were handled by the same prosecutor from start to finish.



Just read that bit again. I don't want to be seen as making excuses here, because I can genuinely say police incompetence probably annoys me even more than most, but of that paragraph the first part, victim support used to be dealt with by FLOs - Force Liason Officers, who were amongst most of the traffic police that were cut (they still exist but in much fewer numbers). 

The rest of the failures are all CPS. I note with interest the last point... My cases normally end up in mags as I'm not CID, but in over ten years I would say at least every 9 in 10 CPS prosecutors have told me at court "sorry, only looked at it this morning" and EVERY time without fail a case has been adjourned its a different prosecutor the next time. 

I've raised it numerous times as internal complaints and it goes no where.


----------



## albion (11 Feb 2015)

Here is an example of our car is king culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...speed-gun-was-only-for-research-purposes.html

117mph in a 30mph zone yet the police can only look, they cannot touch.


----------



## spen666 (11 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> "I don't think it matters on sentence whether the jury love or hate him."
> 
> Yes, I expect the jury could find him not guilty and it won't make any difference to the sentence. Do you have to get up really early to fit so much stupid into the day?


 
Sadly for you, I was replying to your point about sentencing. As I point out sentencing is not a function of the jury. I even quoted it in my original post


> If he pleads not guilty and is then found guilty he'll face a harsher penalty. Unless the jury all hate cyclists.


He won't receive any sentence if the jury acquit him.

Still, try to keep up with minor legal concepts like what a judge does and what a jury does.

In the UK we tend not to pass sentence on people who are acquitted


----------



## WestStandMan (24 Jan 2016)

The driver discussed at the start of this thread also did a similar thing to me. He swerved across the road when I was a pedestrian. His defence when questioned by Glos Police was that he didn't even see me, he was swerving to avoid a puddle. It was my word v his so it didn't progress. 

He does, however, have a good record of escaping charges through technicalities that his brief finds. The CPS and Glos Police can seem either incompetent or deliberately obstructive in dealing with him.


----------



## WestStandMan (25 Jan 2016)

If anyone is interested, he is listed for trial by jury at Swindon today 25 Jan. Watch this space.


----------



## WestStandMan (25 Jan 2016)

His case commenced at 1130.


----------



## Drago (25 Jan 2016)

@CopperCyclist I often have a wry grin on my fizzog when someone who couldn't hold a Monadnock PR 24 NX correctly feels sufficiently qualified to differentiate incompetence from coppers who are stuck with a legal system that gives motorists a greater level of protection from prosecution than murderers. After all, when did murderers enjoy the protection of an NIP period, or a calibration certificate, or the copper arresting him not wearing hi-vis?


----------



## Arjimlad (25 Jan 2016)

The trial continues

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...hree_cyclists__dangerous_driving_trial_hears/


----------



## Origamist (26 Jan 2016)

More here:

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

I'm liking the style of the prosecutor, who seems determined to put Goble behind bars.



> Mr Butt said: "Mr Goble, you are lying through your teeth. You have invented this about potholes because there is no reason for you to swerve into the path of Mr Jones."
> 
> Goble replied: "I presumed there were potholes there. They must have been fixed."
> 
> Mr Butt said: "This is rubbish, absolute rubbish."


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Jan 2016)

I hope he goes to prison. Not for any offences he has committed. But just for being a complete prat.


----------



## Origamist (26 Jan 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I hope he goes to prison. Not for any offences he has committed. But just for being a complete prat.



If being a prat was a crime, we'd both be behind bars. I hope he gets sent down for driving like a tool and endangering others...


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Jan 2016)

Origamist said:


> If being a prat was a crime, we'd both be behind bars. I hope he gets sent down for driving like a tool and endangering others...



Let him get extra time for the offences. But even we couldnt be a as prattish
as this prat.


----------



## Arjimlad (27 Jan 2016)

Scofflaw bellend cockwomble arrogant nasty piece of work. I hope we can trust in the good British jury to see through his "defence" beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## machew (27 Jan 2016)

Origamist said:


> More here:
> 
> http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...deliberately/story-28608113-detail/story.html
> 
> I'm liking the style of the prosecutor, who seems determined to put Goble behind bars.




All they have to do now is ask the council if there were any potholes fixed on the road in questio


----------



## hopless500 (27 Jan 2016)

I've never seen a pothole be filled in invisibly as it appears to be perfect on the clip.


----------



## fossyant (27 Jan 2016)

What a weasel


----------



## BSRU (27 Jan 2016)

Result.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...otorist_guilty_of_driving_at_cyclists_jailed/


----------



## WestStandMan (27 Jan 2016)

Fantastic news. He is already in prison for burglary so this will help extend the time he is off the streets.


----------



## WestStandMan (27 Jan 2016)

Oh, and he has never been on a bike to the best of my knowledge. I am pretty sure both his brothers are dead, so his defence was pretty shaky there too!


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jan 2016)

Wait, his brother and alibi is dead? He used his dead brother to try to wriggle out of it?


----------



## Arjimlad (27 Jan 2016)

A great result. How about a lifetime driving ban though?


----------



## youngoldbloke (27 Jan 2016)

He nicked a bike on June 13th so he might have become a cyclist after all ......


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jan 2016)

Pretends he's going to kill seven people that we know of with his car. Considered safe to drive again in 24 months.


----------



## Lonestar (27 Jan 2016)

He's got a screw loose,totally nasty piece of work.


----------



## WestStandMan (27 Jan 2016)

That he is


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (27 Jan 2016)

I need a camera...


----------



## glenn forger (27 Jan 2016)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-swerves-wrong-lane-just-scare-cyclist.html


----------



## davefb (27 Jan 2016)

one man crime wave! good grief its like something from a tv show , what a total waste of space.


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Jan 2016)

davefb said:


> one man crime wave!



It's the nature of offending.

Spend some time in your local magistrates' court and you will see the same names time and time again.

Or put another way, if your local police inspector could nominate a dozen people for summary execution, the crime rate would drop dramatically.


----------



## jarlrmai (27 Jan 2016)

Can't wait till he's out and behind the wheel again with an even more massive chip on his shoulder against cyclists.

Of course we've all been close passed from behind quite a few times, from the front it can be a bit scarier cos you can see it coming, although I'd say a truck at 40-50 when you are not expecting it can be equally scary.

However the checklist matches this crime.

Driving your car too close? Yup.
Intentionally? Yup.
At a cyclist? Yup.

So the "cause" being "frustration" rather than just being a psychopath seems to make all the difference as far as the CPS/Police/Courts are concerned?


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Jan 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> Can't wait till he's out and behind the wheel again with an even more massive chip on his shoulder against cyclists.



It's a thought, but he's unlikely to enjoy his jail time, particularly as a low-level offender in the Big House, where he will be at the bottom (ho-ho) of the pecking order.

One can only hope the desire not to return from whence he came will overcome any inclination to pursue a vendetta against cyclists.


----------



## ManiaMuse (27 Jan 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a thought, but he's unlikely to enjoy his jail time, particularly as a low-level offender in the Big House, where he will be at the bottom (ho-ho) of the pecking order.
> 
> One can only hope the desire not to return from whence he came will overcome any inclination to pursue a vendetta against cyclists.


He was already in jail for burglary, this is just a 2 1/2 year extension.

I'm sure he knows his way around well enough, some people are just born to be bullying dicks.


----------



## migrantwing (27 Jan 2016)

What a complete and utter c**t!


----------



## slowmotion (27 Jan 2016)

migrantwing said:


> What a complete and utter c**t!


Yes, he certainly doesn't seem to be a gentleman.


----------



## Smurfy (27 Jan 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Pretends he's going to kill seven people that we know of with his car. *Considered safe to drive again in 24 months.*


When does the ban start? Does he have to serve his 2.5 year sentence first?


----------



## Pale Rider (28 Jan 2016)

Smurfy said:


> When does the ban start? Does he have to serve his 2.5 year sentence first?



There is now provision for bans to start from the day the driver is released in prison.

It's not yet clear to me if it's automatic or if the judge has to include 'ban to start on release from prison' in the sentence.

Worth remembering that if this driver wants to drive legally again, at the end of the ban he has to take the extended driving test.

I can't tell you much about that, other than to say it's almost a matter of public policy that no one passes it first time.


----------



## migrantwing (28 Jan 2016)

slowmotion said:


> Yes, he certainly doesn't seem to be a gentleman.



People like this shouldn't be born, or be allowed to bear children at all. Bring back Eugenics, I say!


----------



## Markymark (28 Jan 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> It's a thought, but he's unlikely to enjoy his jail time, particularly as a low-level offender in the Big House, where he will be at the bottom (ho-ho) of the pecking order.
> 
> One can only hope the desire not to return from whence he came will overcome any inclination to pursue a vendetta against cyclists.


This is weighed against letting him off with a slapped wrist and him in the knowledge he can get away with it and do it again. 

At least he knows he can be caught and punished and if he tries it again the punishment next time will be greater.


----------



## jonny jeez (28 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> This is weighed against letting him off with a slapped wrist and him in the knowledge he can get away with it and do it again.
> 
> At least he knows he can be caught and punished and if he tries it again the punishment next time will be greater.


Unfortunately, the outcome of his actions will likely be greater also.

He will end up killing someone, if he hasn't already.


----------



## Dave Davenport (28 Jan 2016)

In all likelihood he'll be back on the road within days of getting out of prison, un-licenced and un-insured.


----------

