Police, primary and politness

[middleagecyclist]

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'm a left leaning, Guardian reader. I work in front line health care - a busy Emergency Dept in an inner city area. I will happily describe a fair proportion of my 'clients' as being from an underclass. I think it is very apt and one of the nicer descriptions of some of these scrotes...ahem, people.

Let's not get too PC. This is cyclists talking to cyclists not us and the Police.

 

[davefb]

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.

what footpath behind the car? and was there any evidence they came up from there?
it just seems 'simple' to just accept 'didnt look' when the law doesnt say 'open the door without due care' , it just says 'open the door and cause'. But apparently because of little court 'action' the issue of fault hasn't even been tested in court..
http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/01/18/the-laws-of-car-doors/


should be made a fixed penalty offence instead I suppose

 

[Red Light]

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.

Yes you did. You said there was fault on both sides, him for opening the door without looking and her for cycling in the door zone. That is wrong. The fault is entirely on his side for doing something clearly illegal and not the victims for doing something entirely legal. Whether you choose to do anything about it is another matter but failing to recognise she was the victim of an illegal act and blaming her for cycling legally on the road - "but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't." - isn't. You don't need a CCTV or witnesses or anything else. You have an injured cyclist and a driver who has opened a door to take her out. That is enough to establish the offence has been committed. It would only matter whether it was 6" or 3ft if you were prosecuting for endangering rather than injuring.

What you have done is the equivalent of saying it was partly the victims fault for being on the street when the gun was fired.

In addition I fail to see where I blamed the victim for the accident or have you just stuck that in to be emotive?

"the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't."?

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.

There you go jumping to conclusions again. Mine is based on the law which I knew. The only "hunting" on the internet was to give a reference to it and that only consisted of typing Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) into legislation.gov.uk and scrolling down to s105.

And one minute you claim knew about that law all along and the next minute you are pleading how can you be expected to know about it. Either you knew about it and ignored it for the purposes of attributing blame or you didn't know about it. Which was it?

 

[Oxo]

I'm a left leaning, Guardian reader. I work in front line health care - a busy Emergency Dept in an inner city area. I will happily describe a fair proportion of my 'clients' as being from an underclass. I think it is very apt and one of the nicer descriptions of some of these scrotes...ahem, people.

Let's not get too PC. This is cyclists talking to cyclists not us and the Police.

Whether 'underclass' is an apt term or not is open to debate, but most people understand what is ment by it.

 

[twobiker]

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.

I did not post about him not knowing the law ,I said it was not patronising but informative "IF" he didn't know it, As the person collided with the door it must have been open, how much more evidence do you need, he said he knew the law existed but not the actual wording so obviously not so obscure after all, you do not need cctv the open door is proof.if it was not open she would not have been able to hit it. And you have no idea what I do.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

the fact that you are both willing to use terms you both acknowledge as unprofessional in a public forum, worrying, i wonder what are you really using 'in reality' behind the scenes, and most importantly in your attitudes?

i thought we were trying to knock stigmatization on the head?

 

[apollo179]

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

If a car driver opens a door thereby injuring a cyclist isnt it either due to the driver not taking due care and thereby accidentally causing the injury or if they did check before opening the door and still did it then they did it deliberately.
Can the cyclist be at fault at all on the grounds that he was too near to the car in the first place. If this is the case then obviously that then does totally make it very dificult to aportion blame cos without third party evidence its as you say disputed liability.
My present understanding is that a cyclist could be cycling 4 inches from a car and if the car door opened then that would be the fault of the car - am i wrong in this beleif.

 

[middleagecyclist]

the fact that you are both willing to use terms you both acknowledge as unprofessional in a public forum, worrying, i wonder what are you really using 'in reality' behind the scenes, and most importantly in your attitudes?

i thought we were trying to knock stigmatization on the head?

I'm not at work. Neither am I dealing with members of the public (from whatever strata). You have no idea of how professional I am. I hope you never need to find out.

Kind regards

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

the code doesn't seem to care whether your at work or not, if your front line i'm sure you'll have similar.

i'm bored now.

 

[doog]

the fact that you are both willing to use terms you both acknowledge as unprofessional in a public forum, worrying, i wonder what are you really using 'in reality' behind the scenes, and most importantly in your attitudes?

i thought we were trying to knock stigmatization on the head?

I dont know whats funnier, watching the barrack room lawyers attempting to pick holes in the legal aspect thats arisen on this thread or the people who have just rocked up to have a dig at them for no other reason than they are Police Officers.

My GP the other day referred to the underclass as the 'great unwashed' - well he would know

 

[middleagecyclist]

i'm bored now.

And quite rude too.

Thanks for your input anyway I'm sure. Goodbye.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

I dont know whats funnier, watching the barrack room lawyers attempting to pick holes in the legal aspect thats arisen on this thread or the people who have just rocked up to have a dig at them for no other reason than they are Police Officers.

hehehe....if they come in here to preach, they deserve to be ridden, HARD!!!

 

[Bicycle]

I dont know whats funnier, watching the barrack room lawyers attempting to pick holes in the legal aspect thats arisen on this thread or the people who have just rocked up to have a dig at them for no other reason than they are Police Officers.

I think that remark is just so typical!

I'm very disappointed. It's just so worrying that you see humour in this. You just don't seem to get it, do you?

How dare you call someone a barrack-room lawyer! My friend really is a barrack-room lawyer and so is his wife.

They'll tell you I'm right!

Your's is exactly the sort of attitude that people like.... (Sorry, my head just exploded)

(The above to be read in a slightly-strangled, John Major-type voice)

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, you may be the 7th or 8th emotionally charged victim of crime I've seen that day.

It may be a once in a lifetime thing for you but I've done it a million times and it's very easy to forget that. On top of that I might have just told someone their relative has died, had a massive fight with a violent maniac, dealt with a rape victim, ticketed a cyclist for jumping a red light or a myriad of other things.

Added to the fact there's 3 sides to every story when the police are involved, your side, their side and what I think happened. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make you wrong or me right, just means we see things differently.

I've even dealt with a cyclist who was shall we say "unhappy" because she got took out by a car door being opened and badly hurt her knee. She was amazed that I wasn't going to prosecute the driver but I couldn't because there were no independent witnesses, no CCTV and both were blaming each other. Yes the driver should have looked properly but by the same token the cyclist should have been out of the car door zone when clearly she wasn't.

The point is that someone will always feel they are being dealt a poor hand by the police regardless. We try our best but sometimes it's not enough to please you, sorry about that.

The OP has a good point though, police officers are in the main human and just like you and me respond very well to polite intelligent conversation. Again we may not agree but it's worth a try.

Your reply actually supports my comments as you have confirmed that in general, Police have a poor attitude at incidents and also that they prejudge, as you have in assuming that I don't deal with conflict and emotion on a regular basis or expecting I don't have enough knowledge of Polic operations to know that what you describe would be far, far from a normal day even in the worst of areas.

Some people remember that they are public servants and manage to do it politely and respectfully understanding that they are understandably emotional and still manage to listen to what someone is saying instead of simply assuming it's just another scrote trying to wriggle out of things.

The bulk of people are honest and law abiding, little wonder so many seem to be hostile to the attitude of some Police officers.

 

[Oxo]

I think that remark is just so typical!

I'm very disappointed. It's just so worrying that you see humour in this. You just don't seem to get it, do you?

How dare you call someone a barrack-room lawyer! My friend really is a barrack-room lawyer and so is his wife.

They'll tell you I'm right!

Your's is exactly the sort of attitude that people like.... (Sorry, my head just exploded)

(The above to be read in a slightly-strangled, John Major-type voice)

(The above to be read in a slightly-strangled, Sergeant Major-type voice)