Police, primary and politness

[twobiker]

Yes it is illegal to do so as the law states, and no I haven't ignored an illegal act as you try and insinuate. I have looked at the facts of the incident and in line with policy, the law and the guidance of supervision have deemed that it is not in the public interest to prosecute, nor will have a realistic prospect of conviction. Therefore no further action was taken. If we applied the law as you seem to wish then every driver who parks at the side of the road should be prosecuted under the same law, ridiculous I'm sure you'll agree. In addition I fail to see where I blamed the victim for the accident or have you just stuck that in to be emotive?

Inadvertently you have illustrated the problem perfectly, we clearly have a difference of opinion and yours is so strong you have even hunted the internet for the exact bit of law and been incredibly patronising by telling me what my job is. How any reasonable person can expect *anyone* to know all of "the law" is simply beyond me and is generally simply used as a stick to beat someone (usually the police or a lawyer) with.

Its not patronising if you did not know it , its informative, and some may say as you are paid to enforce the law, knowing it might help.

 

[Dave W]

Sorry to pick up on this part of your otherwise helpful and informative post, but this is just wrong. Cycling in the door zone does not absolve a driver of his resposibility as it is an offence to open “any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”.

If you’re cycling along and someone opens a car door in your path, they may commit this offence (and be liable to a fine of up to £1000). (RVCUR r. 105; RTA s. 42; RTOA Sch 2).

Edit - RL beat me to it.

I didn't say it did absolve the driver, it's simply a contributory factor in the accident and something I have to take account of when making a decision on process. If I'm thinking it at the roadside a solicitor in court would rip the victim to shreds about it and most likely result in a not guilty decision.

The law as it is written down is black and white, it's application in the real world is not. The driver opened her door and took out the cyclist, the driver claimed to have only opened the door about 6 inches. The cyclist disagreed and said it was much wider.

Let me flip this round and ask what you would have done?

 

[Dave W]

Its not patronising if you did not know it , its informative, and some may say as you are paid to enforce the law, knowing it might help.

The patronising bit was not pointing out the bit of law (which I was aware of though not the exact wording) but rather telling me it's my job to know the law. I'm rather aware of that fact and don't need reminding of it so someone can score cheap points on the internet.

 

[apollo179]

The patronising bit was not pointing out the bit of law (which I was aware of though not the exact wording) but rather telling me it's my job to know the law. I'm rather aware of that fact and don't need reminding of it so someone can score cheap points on the internet.

Isnt the thing with the car door opening that its ok to open a car door with the due care but its not ok to open the car door without due care and thereby cause injury to another person as a result.
Presumably a lawyer could assert that the act and resulting injury is in itself enough evidence to establish lack of due care.

 

[Origamist]

I didn't say it did absolve the driver, it's simply a contributory factor in the accident and something I have to take account of when making a decision on process. If I'm thinking it at the roadside a solicitor in court would rip the victim to shreds about it and most likely result in a not guilty decision.

The law as it is written down is black and white, it's application in the real world is not. The driver opened her door and took out the cyclist, the driver claimed to have only opened the door about 6 inches. The cyclist disagreed and said it was much wider.

Let me flip this round and ask what you would have done?

I think the problem with your earlier statement was that you mentioned the cyclist was in the door zone and used the term "by the same token" - suggesting equal responsibility/liability.

I appreciate you have clarified the details of the collision, but to be honest, if every driver said they had opened the door 6 inches would that be sufficient for you not to proceed? There is not a min limit is there?

To answer your question, I'd be interested in the nature and extent of the cyclist's injuries, damage to the bike and door to glean if the 6 inch story could be in any way corroborated. What's more, it's much easier to avoid a door that has been opened 6 inches, rather than 3 foot for example. Did the driver say he checked before opening the door?

Anyway, this is OT and I am not having a go.

 

[twobiker]

The patronising bit was not pointing out the bit of law (which I was aware of though not the exact wording) but rather telling me it's my job to know the law. I'm rather aware of that fact and don't need reminding of it so someone can score cheap points on the internet.

You are quite touchy about this but I have no need for cheap points, I have two relations in the force both Inspectors and a cool head in a situation is a mark of a good officer, your reaction to my post is unwarranted, where an incident is 50/50 a degree of diplomacy is as much a tool as a law book.

 

[doog]

Except that's not your decision to make - it is the decision of the CPS. It is your duty as a police officer to investigate fully and, where there is evidence of an offence (in this case there clearly was as it is an absolute offence), submit a file to the CPS. It is for the CPS to apply the public interest and realistic prospect tests.

I think you will find that in minor cases such as this its the Police who decide to charge/ report not the CPS. The CPS can always knock it on the head and I suspect it would be laughed out of court if it ever got there.....now back to reality.

 

[doog]

You are quite touchy about this but I have no need for cheap points, I have two relations in the force both Inspectors and a cool head in a situation is a mark of a good officer, your reaction to my post is unwarranted, where an incident is 50/50 a degree of diplomacy is as much a tool as a law book.

Knowing two Inspectors doesnt qualify you to comment on what it takes to be a Police Officer.

 

[Dave W]

Isnt the thing with the car door opening that its ok to open a car door with the due care but its not ok to open the car door without due care and thereby cause injury to another person as a result.
Presumably a lawyer could assert that the act and resulting injury is in itself enough evidence to establish lack of due care.

Exactly, it also has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's an extremely high burden of proof.

I think the problem with your earlier statement was that you mentioned the cyclist was in the door zone and used the term "by the same token" - suggesting equal responsibility.

I appreciate you have clarified the details of the collision, but to be honest, if every driver said they had opened the door 6 inches would that be sufficient for you not to proceed? There is not a min limit is there?

To answer your question, I'd be interested in the nature and extent of the cyclist's injuries, damage to the bike and door to glean if the 6 inch story could be in any way corroborated. What's more, it's much easier to avoid a door that has been opened 6 inches, rather than 3 foot for example. Did the driver say he checked before opening the door?

Anyway, this is OT and I am not having a go.

Yes poor wording on my part, the cyclist did contribute to the accident by being in the door zone but clearly that isn't the cause. They cyclist broke a bone in her knee, no damage to the bike or the car, no corroboration at all, one word against another.

Incidentally one word against another is 50/50, that's a not guilty verdict straight away.

In addition the highway code says you should "Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path" when cycling. No defence solicitor in the world would not bring this up in court. The driver was adamant they checked and nothing was there, they then opened the door only 6 inches before the cyclist hit.

Not easy to make a decision is it? Proceed and you are potentially wasting thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, don't proceed and the car driver potentially gets away with an illegal act.

I might add that I was swinging in favour of prosecution but once I'd discussed it with supervision the lack of any independent witnesses killed it.

Except that's not your decision to make - it is the decision of the CPS. It is your duty as a police officer to investigate fully and, where there is evidence of an offence (in this case there clearly was as it is an absolute offence), submit a file to the CPS. It is for the CPS to apply the public interest and realistic prospect tests.

Not in the case of low level traffic offences it isn't, nor low level criminal offences either. The offence is absolute, the test would be was the door opened so as to cause a danger?

Do you really think it's a valuable use of public funds for me to spend 4 hours minimum putting a prosecution file together to send to CPS who spend another half an hour looking at it for something that would result in a fine of £30. It would cost more than that in paper, hence the public interest test. If it was an open and shut case then yes, this wasn't and would have likely gone to trial resulting in a bill of at least a few thousand quid to the tax payer that had little chance of resulting in conviction.

 

[davefb]

I didn't say it did absolve the driver, it's simply a contributory factor in the accident and something I have to take account of when making a decision on process. If I'm thinking it at the roadside a solicitor in court would rip the victim to shreds about it and most likely result in a not guilty decision.

The law as it is written down is black and white, it's application in the real world is not. The driver opened her door and took out the cyclist, the driver claimed to have only opened the door about 6 inches. The cyclist disagreed and said it was much wider.

Let me flip this round and ask what you would have done?

could they have taken the cyclist out if they opened the door 6 inches?

and what difference does that make? the issue is 'not opening the door' isnt it? not how far?

Surely the defence to such an act would be to say 'i looked, but didnt see the cyclist as they 'appeared from no-where' ? Which implies the driver admitted to it..

[edit]

makes less sense after reading the next point so the driver did say they looked...

I still find this difficult to take, almost as if when the police say 'they said they looked' that somehow magically the accident will 'unhappen'

 

[CopperCyclist]

i'm sorry cc, but i find the word 'underclass' very unprofessional from a highly paid civil servant (compared to other civil servants).

I stick with my term. I accept its complete un-politicallycorrect, but I'm afraid that after years of dealing with people, there really is a growing number of people in our society who care nothing at all for the rights of others. They take what is given for free, then they assault, beat and rob to take more. They kill for pounds, they dish out beatings for laughs, they prey on the vulnerable, and worse, they often laugh, boast and enjoy it. They have contempt for the rights of others, and often these others are the first that would stand up and speak out for THEIR rights. I meet these people all the time, and personally I think my term is kind.

I accept your view of being offended by it and I apologise, I'll try not to use it as it probably does detract from my points - but I'll be honest and say its accurate. I'm not talking about mental health patients, I'm talking about people who make genuine decisions to act as described above.

Don't miscontrue me. This isn't a view of everyone I meet, not in any way at all. My original use of the term was just to try and higlight the lows that I deal with almost on a daily basis, and by contrast how when I meet a genuine member of the public that I'd happily put myself in harms way for, the difference it makes.

The cynical would read a little more into your post, as I would a few others - however I'm already drifting off topic so I'll leave it here!

It may also assist to know I'm not a traffic officer, I'm a response officer, and an Authorised Taser Officer - hence you can imagine the sort of jobs that are my 'bread and butter' and hopefully understand what I deal with.

 

[Dave W]

You are quite touchy about this but I have no need for cheap points, I have two relations in the force both Inspectors and a cool head in a situation is a mark of a good officer, your reaction to my post is unwarranted, where an incident is 50/50 a degree of diplomacy is as much a tool as a law book.

I know you have no need to score cheap points, I wasn't directing my post at you and did not react to it.

It was directed at the person who told me what my job was and yes I am touchy about it. Someone who most likely has absolutely no idea what my job entails on a day to day basis tells me what my job is, how insulting!

 

[twobiker]

Knowing two Inspectors doesnt qualify you to comment on what it takes to be a Police Officer.

I do not need to know any police to comment on what it takes to be a policeman,as it is my opinion, but, knowing two Inspectors who have commendations has given me the chance to talk to them and see the coin from the other side, there is a person inside the uniform.

 

[Dave W]

could they have taken the cyclist out if they opened the door 6 inches?

and what difference does that make? the issue is 'not opening the door' isnt it? not how far?

Surely the defence to such an act would be to say 'i looked, but didnt see the cyclist as they 'appeared from no-where' ? Which implies the driver admitted to it..

[edit]

makes less sense after reading the next point so the driver did say they looked...

I still find this difficult to take, almost as if when the police say 'they said they looked' that somehow magically the accident will 'unhappen'

Again, not easy is it.

I'll try and explain. To prosecute the driver I would have to gather evidence that would support beyond reasonable doubt that the car driver opened the door in a manner that caused injury. Without independent witnesses or CCTV it would be almost impossible to prove.

The cyclist could have suddenly came out from the footpath behind the car and hit the car door after the driver had checked the mirror and the blind spot, that alone would result in a not guilty verdict. Without any evidence to the contrary I'm afraid it's tough luck.

Most likely the driver didn't look properly and did open the door wider than 6 inches, unfortunately conviction in a criminal court requires a bit more than most likely.

 

[doog]

I do not need to know any police to comment on what it takes to be a policeman,as it is my opinion, but, knowing two Inspectors who have commendations has given me the chance to talk to them and see the coin from the other side, there is a person inside the uniform.

An opinion ?You were commenting on how to deal with an incident...why dont you join the Special Constabulary then come back and tell us how it is. Thereafter you wont feel so inclined to post smarmy comments about Police Officers not knowing about obscure parts of the law.

Thats my opinion.