I have been critical of law enforcement agencies that have failed to take any action against a driver who threatened to kill me when I was on my bicycle. Many many people (the vast majority) have been kind enough to let me know that they believe I am doing the right thing and this does certainly motivate me to keep at it.
It is though predictable that anybody who pops their head above the parapet to seek to change the established order invites criticism, some of it expressed in immoderate terms and some of it from surprising quarters. The criticism broadly falls under the following heads:
1. You are making a lot of fuss about nothing and you have lost all objectivity likening this to a threat with a gun. The threat was hollow, empty and unexecuted. Happens all the time. You escaped unharmed; get a life.
The threat was delivered pre-meditated for a period of around 10 minutes (since the incident that upset him). He drew alongside me no more than a couple of feet away on a narrow road and threatened to kill me. He had the means at his disposal to carry out his threat (to my mind the analogy with a gun or knife is apposite). He became more sheepish afterwards when, because his car was stationary and I was alongside him, he could no longer use it to harm me. This is not journalistic hyperbole, like that from Matthew Parris, which need not be taken seriously. Of course he did not actually kill me or in the event try to; if he had he would, or should, be on a murder or attempted murder charge. It is quite obviously not a defence to a charge of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that the offender stopped short of a more serious offence.
My view is that it is time to call a halt to this type of behaviour and one important first step is to call a halt to its acceptance by police, prosecutors and apparently some cyclists. If I can play some small part in this I would be very happy to do so, as must be obvious to anyone who has read my Cycling against the Car Culture. I, too, used to live in a world of indifference to aggression of this sort. My Pauline conversion came when representing the Vesco family at the inquest into the death of their young daughter Marie, an experience I will not ever forget. There was too much indifference there on display from authorities whose job it is to protect us. I hope that the experience has turned me into an activist.
How can we expect ordinary people to take to their bicycles in the numbers which would make the world a better place if we tolerate abuse, threats and far too often real harm and even death inflicted on vulnerable road users?
If the police have the resources and inclination to hand out penalties to cyclists who cycle though Abingdon's pedestrianised high street, they surely have the resources to hand a fixed penalty for disorder to a motorist who abuses a cyclist.
2. You asked for it.
Astonishingly enough there are people on a bike chat forum who express this in various different ways. An 'expert' on riding the A315 has popped up to say there is no need to antagonise motorists by moving out from the edge of the road and that he has been passed by this same car with no drama. A triatheletes' forum is suggesting 'six of one half a dozen of the other' or 'gobby motorist v gobby cyclist'. Some have appeared to say that as they cycle around and motorists do not often threaten to kill them, it must all be my fault and point to my having a camera as further proof.
I do find it hard not to take offence at this. No bikeability instructor or knowledgeable cyclist would have any criticism of the way I was riding. (If I am wrong and you are a bikeability instructor let me know!)Furthermore motorists are not beasts on a safari park whose instincts to attack may be aroused if you do not act cautiously around them. The motorist is responsible for his actions and I am not going to ride in a position that is unsafe so as not to arouse him. As for 'gobby', am I expected to remain mute while this is going on? If not, bear in mind that the microphone is much closer to me than the motorist and when moving there is no point in saying anything at all unless I shout it. Is it really thought that the content of what I am saying is in any sense comparable to the content of what he says to me? I do not get it, and I do dislike the rush that some people make to blame the victim.
The video also demonstrates that, whatever motorists may think, they do not get to their destimation a moment later because of my presence on the road.
3. The CPS are right - there is no evidence
The same discussion on a chat forum is almost comical on this subject. Apparently those at the sharp end of the criminal justice system, who cycle, post their opinions (along with I readily concede more sensible voices) and advise each other knowingly on what evidence is, and is not, admissible (the clear admission immediately after the event that the suspect threatened to kill me is no evidence of anything in one learned opinion) and how my story has shifted over time, casting doubt on whether I was called a "f***g c**t" or a "cocky c**t", which means the case would surely be thrown out (neglecting to notice that those words are actually quite clear on the video). My evidence as to what was said when the car drew alongside is also pronounced to be worthless (the fact I repeated the words into the camera giving it the same status as if I had written it down contemporaneously is alas overlooked). What innocent explanation is there, I wonder, which could turn out to be consistent with what is on the tape and would explain why I have fabricated all this against an innocent motorist? - we will never of course know until the motorist is asked, but it would have to be good for even the lawyers on bikeradar to secure an acquittal.
4. The video is very dodgy - you've doctored it.
I have very overtly taken out a long segment between the time that the motorist took offence and the time that he threatened to kill me. This has apparently aroused some suspicions that I have edited out frightful behaviour which would justify the threat. If you have time on your hands you may view a 10 minute unedited version here. I have, from day one, offered the original memory card to the police.
Equally I can appreciate that the video is very hard to hear; so there is a transparently doctored version equipped with subtitles here. As I say on youtube, if anybody has the capability to report reliably on the content of the soundtrack, I would be very happy to send them a DVD for that purpose.
5. You can't complain you are a lawyer...or you should do it yourself
The idea that a lawyer cannot complain about deficiencies in the legal system seems to me very odd. The idea that a lawyer who is the witness of a crime should bring a private prosecution with no assistance from the state even more odd. Just as I am not above the law, so too I am not beyond its protection. If I am in an advantaged position through having legal knowledge, I very much hope I am putting that to use for the benefit of others rather more than for myself. I have to pursue this because many others would be put off from doing so. A stand has to be taken somewhere somehow.
Enough for now; even in this cold weather I cannot devote all my leisure time to this!
Saturday, 27 November 2010
Friday, 26 November 2010
Press Coverage
London Evening Standard (West End Final A)
26 Nov 2010
Click here for the on-line version with a range of comments (I encourage you to add yours). The comments there range from supportive to hostility to cyclists, and in a number of cases a view that a threat from a motorist in erratic control of a tonne of metal is something that cyclists should be expected to shrug off and not waste police time with. I suspect this latter view most closely accords with the view the police/CPS take.
Daily Telegraph Saturday 27th November
Ascot News Friday 3rd December
Maidenhead Advertiser Tuesday 7th December
BBC News Berkshire Wednesday 8th December
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Threat to kill: letter to CPS District Crown Prosecutor
25th November 2010
Mr Arwell Jones
The District Crown Prosecutor
WEST LONDON PROSECUTION SERVICE
3rd Floor, King’s House, Kymberley Road, Harrow HA1 1YH
DX 4204 Harrow 1
Dear Mr Jones,
Threat to kill, Hounslow 04.11.10
On 4th November I reported a crime committed earlier that day on the A315 just West of Houslow, when a motorist drew alongside me and threatened to kill me. His admission soon afterwards that he had threatened to kill me is clearly recorded on a video camera as are the words ‘you are a cocky cunt’. The film footage can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv8w5-cOmCs
My understanding is that the police officer assigned to investigate this case considered issuing a fixed penalty notice to the suspect for a breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act and took advice from the CPS at Hounslow. The officer was apparently then advised by Manjit Mahal that there was insufficient evidence ‘to pass the threshold test’ and that no action should be taken.
I e mailed Mr Mahal on the same day this decision was communicated to me, 11th November. For your convenience I set out a copy of my email.
“Dear Mr Mahal,
I refer to your decision that there is not sufficient evidence of a crime (specifically use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I take it that you have decided this on the basis of the evidential test.
The evidential test should only be applied when all the available evidence has been reviewed and this includes an assessment of any Defence that might be put forward. If the allegation is put to the motorist and he admits making a threat to kill; then it seems to me incomprehensible that any potential prosecution would fail a merits test. If on the other hand he denies making a threat to kill (or exercises his right to silence), there is still my evidence that he made such a threat coupled with a repetition by me of what he said on a tape (which is equivalent to a contemporaneous note) and a further requirement to explain why he would have admitted threatening to kill me if he had not actually done so. At the very least the video evidence I have supplied you with provides strong corroborative evidence of my account which gives rise to at least a 50% prospect of conviction.
I have already informed the police that I retain the original and complete film recorded onto a mini SD card and I can think of no possible informed basis upon which anybody could doubt the admissibility of that evidence. Indeed a forensic analysis of the file may confirm my account of the actual words spoken by the motorist as he drew alongside me.
You are also bound to bear in mind that that threat from a car driver immediately alongside me is equivalent to making a threat with a loaded gun. All he need do to actually kill or maim me was to steer even further over to his left. This is an offence which should be taken seriously.
If it comes to a consideration of the public interest, you will no doubt bear in mind that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to harm inflicted intentionally or carelessly by motorists. There is a widespread perception that cyclists are often not enjoying the protection of the law to which they are entitled. Threats and abuse against cyclists is unfortunately widespread especially in the outer London boroughs and the main problem is (usually, though not in this case) securing sufficient evidence to take action against the minority of motorists who are determined to persecute cyclists.
I invite you to reconsider this decision and to refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Porter”
Unfortunately two weeks later I have not had the courtesy even of an acknowledgment of this e-mail.
The only sensible inference that can be drawn from this failure to prosecute where the evidence is so overwhelming, and no sensible justification is put forward for failing to do so, is that crime committed against cyclists by motorists is not treated seriously. I do urge you please to investigate this and to review the decision not to charge this individual. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, please treat this letter as a formal complaint and accord me the courtesy of a reasoned explanation for the decision.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Porter
Mr Arwell Jones
The District Crown Prosecutor
WEST LONDON PROSECUTION SERVICE
3rd Floor, King’s House, Kymberley Road, Harrow HA1 1YH
DX 4204 Harrow 1
Dear Mr Jones,
Threat to kill, Hounslow 04.11.10
On 4th November I reported a crime committed earlier that day on the A315 just West of Houslow, when a motorist drew alongside me and threatened to kill me. His admission soon afterwards that he had threatened to kill me is clearly recorded on a video camera as are the words ‘you are a cocky cunt’. The film footage can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv8w5-cOmCs
My understanding is that the police officer assigned to investigate this case considered issuing a fixed penalty notice to the suspect for a breach of section 5 of the Public Order Act and took advice from the CPS at Hounslow. The officer was apparently then advised by Manjit Mahal that there was insufficient evidence ‘to pass the threshold test’ and that no action should be taken.
I e mailed Mr Mahal on the same day this decision was communicated to me, 11th November. For your convenience I set out a copy of my email.
“Dear Mr Mahal,
I refer to your decision that there is not sufficient evidence of a crime (specifically use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I take it that you have decided this on the basis of the evidential test.
The evidential test should only be applied when all the available evidence has been reviewed and this includes an assessment of any Defence that might be put forward. If the allegation is put to the motorist and he admits making a threat to kill; then it seems to me incomprehensible that any potential prosecution would fail a merits test. If on the other hand he denies making a threat to kill (or exercises his right to silence), there is still my evidence that he made such a threat coupled with a repetition by me of what he said on a tape (which is equivalent to a contemporaneous note) and a further requirement to explain why he would have admitted threatening to kill me if he had not actually done so. At the very least the video evidence I have supplied you with provides strong corroborative evidence of my account which gives rise to at least a 50% prospect of conviction.
I have already informed the police that I retain the original and complete film recorded onto a mini SD card and I can think of no possible informed basis upon which anybody could doubt the admissibility of that evidence. Indeed a forensic analysis of the file may confirm my account of the actual words spoken by the motorist as he drew alongside me.
You are also bound to bear in mind that that threat from a car driver immediately alongside me is equivalent to making a threat with a loaded gun. All he need do to actually kill or maim me was to steer even further over to his left. This is an offence which should be taken seriously.
If it comes to a consideration of the public interest, you will no doubt bear in mind that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to harm inflicted intentionally or carelessly by motorists. There is a widespread perception that cyclists are often not enjoying the protection of the law to which they are entitled. Threats and abuse against cyclists is unfortunately widespread especially in the outer London boroughs and the main problem is (usually, though not in this case) securing sufficient evidence to take action against the minority of motorists who are determined to persecute cyclists.
I invite you to reconsider this decision and to refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Porter”
Unfortunately two weeks later I have not had the courtesy even of an acknowledgment of this e-mail.
The only sensible inference that can be drawn from this failure to prosecute where the evidence is so overwhelming, and no sensible justification is put forward for failing to do so, is that crime committed against cyclists by motorists is not treated seriously. I do urge you please to investigate this and to review the decision not to charge this individual. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, please treat this letter as a formal complaint and accord me the courtesy of a reasoned explanation for the decision.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Porter
The Metropolitan Police Response; Roadsafe London
I have received a letter responding to my complaint back in September that I was not getting any joy from using Roadsafe London. I was sent a copy of a letter addressed to me and dated 5th October which never arrived. It is a little unfortunate that my e mail chasers which postdated that letter got no response as it might have become apparent that this letter was 'lost in the post' before I had to write to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner again in early November.
Leaving that miscommunication aside, the response is quite encouraging. Apparently the reports I made on Roadsafe London were not ignored. The clips I posted on youtube were viewed and a letter was sent to the registered keepers of the vehicles concerned with a link to youtube and a request to "drive carefully, keep yourselves and others safe and avoid the risk of being prosecuted". None of this is apparent though to the reporter of the incident who gets only an (apparently) automatically generated e mail response and hears nothing more. This may not compensate for the marked reluctance to prosecute on the part of the police and CPS but to give credit where it is due this is better than nothing. If I had known such letters were being sent out to registered keepers I would have reported some of the more dangerous close passes from lorries. Now that I do know I will resume using the site in appropriate circumstances.
None of this relates to the difficulty I have had in getting the threat to kill pursued and my next task is to pen a letter to the CPS.
I will keep you posted.
Leaving that miscommunication aside, the response is quite encouraging. Apparently the reports I made on Roadsafe London were not ignored. The clips I posted on youtube were viewed and a letter was sent to the registered keepers of the vehicles concerned with a link to youtube and a request to "drive carefully, keep yourselves and others safe and avoid the risk of being prosecuted". None of this is apparent though to the reporter of the incident who gets only an (apparently) automatically generated e mail response and hears nothing more. This may not compensate for the marked reluctance to prosecute on the part of the police and CPS but to give credit where it is due this is better than nothing. If I had known such letters were being sent out to registered keepers I would have reported some of the more dangerous close passes from lorries. Now that I do know I will resume using the site in appropriate circumstances.
None of this relates to the difficulty I have had in getting the threat to kill pursued and my next task is to pen a letter to the CPS.
I will keep you posted.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
The Metropolitan Police/CPS response; brace yourselves
Sir
Thank you for sending me the disc. I have viewed it with a colleague and unfortunately there is not enough there to secure a conviction or give the male a PND for this offence of Sec 5 POA. I have spoken to a CPS lawyer who is based at Hounslow Police Station and on their advice their is not enough to secure a conviction and that the threshold test has not been met. I appreciate you will find this disappointing to hear and I can only apologise for that. For this reason the investigation will now be closed.
Kind Regards
[Police Constable]
My response:
Dear [Crown Prosecutor],
I refer to your decision that there is not sufficient evidence of a crime (specifically use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I take it that you have decided this on the basis of the evidential test.
The evidential test should only be applied when all the available evidence has been reviewed and this includes an assessment of any Defence that might be put forward. If the allegation is put to the motorist and he admits making a threat to kill; then it seems to me incomprehensible that any potential prosecution would fail a merits test. If on the other hand he denies making a threat to kill (or exercises his right to silence), there is still my evidence that he made such a threat coupled with a repetition by me of what he said on a tape (which is equivalent to a contemporaneous note) and a further requirement to explain why he would have admitted threatening to kill me if he had not actually done so. At the very least the video evidence I have supplied you with provides strong corroborative evidence of my account which gives rise to at least a 50% prospect of conviction.
I have already informed the police that I retain the original and complete film recorded onto a mini SD card and I can think of no possible informed basis upon which anybody could doubt the admissibility of that evidence. Indeed a forensic analysis of the file may confirm my account of the actual words spoken by the motorist as he drew alongside me.
You are also bound to bear in mind that that threat from a car driver immediately alongside me is equivalent to making a threat with a loaded gun. All he need do to actually kill or maim me was to steer even further over to his left. This is an offence which should be taken seriously.
If it comes to a consideration of the public interest, you will no doubt bear in mind that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to harm inflicted intentionally or carelessly by motorists. There is a widespread perception that cyclists are often not enjoying the protection of the law to which they are entitled. Threats and abuse against cyclists is unfortunately widespread especially in the outer London boroughs and the main problem is (usually, though not in this case) securing sufficient evidence to take action against the minority of motorists who are determined to persecute cyclists.
I invite you to reconsider this decision and to refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Porter
The evidential test is described in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (scroll down to section 4).
Thank you for sending me the disc. I have viewed it with a colleague and unfortunately there is not enough there to secure a conviction or give the male a PND for this offence of Sec 5 POA. I have spoken to a CPS lawyer who is based at Hounslow Police Station and on their advice their is not enough to secure a conviction and that the threshold test has not been met. I appreciate you will find this disappointing to hear and I can only apologise for that. For this reason the investigation will now be closed.
Kind Regards
[Police Constable]
My response:
Dear [Crown Prosecutor],
I refer to your decision that there is not sufficient evidence of a crime (specifically use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. I take it that you have decided this on the basis of the evidential test.
The evidential test should only be applied when all the available evidence has been reviewed and this includes an assessment of any Defence that might be put forward. If the allegation is put to the motorist and he admits making a threat to kill; then it seems to me incomprehensible that any potential prosecution would fail a merits test. If on the other hand he denies making a threat to kill (or exercises his right to silence), there is still my evidence that he made such a threat coupled with a repetition by me of what he said on a tape (which is equivalent to a contemporaneous note) and a further requirement to explain why he would have admitted threatening to kill me if he had not actually done so. At the very least the video evidence I have supplied you with provides strong corroborative evidence of my account which gives rise to at least a 50% prospect of conviction.
I have already informed the police that I retain the original and complete film recorded onto a mini SD card and I can think of no possible informed basis upon which anybody could doubt the admissibility of that evidence. Indeed a forensic analysis of the file may confirm my account of the actual words spoken by the motorist as he drew alongside me.
You are also bound to bear in mind that that threat from a car driver immediately alongside me is equivalent to making a threat with a loaded gun. All he need do to actually kill or maim me was to steer even further over to his left. This is an offence which should be taken seriously.
If it comes to a consideration of the public interest, you will no doubt bear in mind that cyclists are extremely vulnerable to harm inflicted intentionally or carelessly by motorists. There is a widespread perception that cyclists are often not enjoying the protection of the law to which they are entitled. Threats and abuse against cyclists is unfortunately widespread especially in the outer London boroughs and the main problem is (usually, though not in this case) securing sufficient evidence to take action against the minority of motorists who are determined to persecute cyclists.
I invite you to reconsider this decision and to refer it to a Senior Crown Prosecutor.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Porter
The evidential test is described in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (scroll down to section 4).
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Taxi Drivers
A bad week for me commuting (what with the threat to kill me on Thursday morning and being forced to the side of the road at a pinchpoint Friday morning) was rounded off with this 'advice' from a black cab driver to keep to the side of the road because 'my cab is harder than you are.' The advice was delivered after he had come shockingly close to knocking me off my bike.
I have to beware of course of generalisations - I once sat next to a charming cab driver at a wedding and they always used to be friendly enough to me as a fare in the days when I used to use them. Having said that I have been on the roads of London long enough to know that a substantial proportion drive with an arrogant assumption of entitlement to the road. A lot have no respect whatever for red traffic lights and give woefully inadequate space to cyclists (whom many, like the one above, just appear to loathe).
Here is one cutting me up on Constitution Hill, a road which is barred to all other commercial vehicles (including as a University friend of mine once found to his cost, motorcycle despatch riders).
I suppose it is no surprise they feel an unusual sense of entitlement. They are entitled to enter central London without paying a Congestion Charge; they are entitled to use bus lanes (including that famous one on the M4) whether carrying a fare or merely looking for one, they get free parking at numerous Central London locations that would cost anyone else several pounds an hour to get their breakfast, tea or whatever. Black cabbies run profitable businesses. So why on earth do they get all this direct and indirect subsidy from us? Would be nothing to do with the frequency with which taxi fares appear on politicians' expenses claims would it? Personally I do not buy the 'public transport' argument and am surprised that anybody does. It is personalised transport on an even less efficient basis than private car use.
I know; this blog is starting to turn into a rant, but after a hard week I am feeling despondent. I am sure it is nothing that a bit of bike riding won't put right.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
The Metropolitan Police. Do they take cyclists seriously?
Why would I doubt it? Well, I have tried using the Roadsafe reporting website on a few occasions and have not yet elicited any kind of response beyond an automated acknowledgement. I complained to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner back in September and have had only a holding response despite chasing.
I decided I would report this morning's incident (see my immediately preceding blog post). Since it has required, and no doubt will require, a substantial investment of my time I thought I would spend the further time to report here how I get on.
I reported this morning to a central number, gave very outline details and was told the matter could be taken further only if I reported to a Metropolitan Police Station and filled in the form applicable to road rage. I was also asked to take in the video evidence.
I have just returned from visiting Charing Cross Station. It took just over an hour. The appropriate form is not available to be picked up, you have to get to the counter. After a 20 minute wait I got to see an 'SRO' (Station Reception Officer, I think). He told me first that I could not have a form as there had not been a collision. I told him I was there at the request of somebody else in the Metropolitan Police and had compelling evidence of a crime in the form of a video. I had as requested taken the video along on a CD. 'Are you a licensed to take copies of videos...No, well then I am afraid we cannot use that video. If we were to use that in Court it would be thrown out'. (Not true).
I persevered and eventually he went away to consult a sergeant. 20 minutes later he came back saying he would record the details as a public order offence. He took my details and recorded my answers in his computer. The questions included
'What were you wearing, was it fluorescent?'
'Were you in lycra?'
'You were riding along the yellow line, yeah?' Indicating, on Google Earth streetview, the single yellow parking restriction line you can just see at the outset in my video.
'Did you inform him you were filming him?'
'Why did you have a camera?'
Before I left I again offered my CD. No, he would not accept that and no it could not be passed on to Hounslow who were to investigate. If they took it any further they would require my camera for about 3 weeks.
I was given a reference and told that if I had any further queries I was to revisit a police station with my 9 number reference. No, I could not telephone/e mail.
I am just telling it as it is, with no comment. I will update this post as appropriate.
Postscript: I should perhaps have made it clearer that as a consequence of my persistence the details I supplied (without the video) will be passed to Hounslow Police Station for investigation of a public order offence.
UPDATE (8th November): Progress. I have been contacted by a Police Constable in Chiswick who is investigating and I have sent him a copy of the video (and the youtube link).
UPDATE (9th November): I was pretty fed up as a consequence of Thursday's events so when the following morning I filmed some more aggressive driving, I put it on a CD and sent it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with a reminder that I had still received no substantive response to my earlier comments about the RoadSafe reporting initiative. His office will no doubt have received that yesterday. This morning between 0915 and 0930 I was sent e mail acknowledgements of the three reports I have made in the last week. The first response of any kind I have ever got using RoadSafe so things are picking up.
I also got home last night to find a letter confirming that Chiswick were investigating the reported threat to kill enclosed with a leaflet from 'Victim Support'.
I will continue to keep you posted.
UPDATE (11th November): The police advised by the CPS have decided upon no further action. I have asked them to refer it to a more senior level within the CPS and indicated that I wish to complain.
I decided I would report this morning's incident (see my immediately preceding blog post). Since it has required, and no doubt will require, a substantial investment of my time I thought I would spend the further time to report here how I get on.
I reported this morning to a central number, gave very outline details and was told the matter could be taken further only if I reported to a Metropolitan Police Station and filled in the form applicable to road rage. I was also asked to take in the video evidence.
I have just returned from visiting Charing Cross Station. It took just over an hour. The appropriate form is not available to be picked up, you have to get to the counter. After a 20 minute wait I got to see an 'SRO' (Station Reception Officer, I think). He told me first that I could not have a form as there had not been a collision. I told him I was there at the request of somebody else in the Metropolitan Police and had compelling evidence of a crime in the form of a video. I had as requested taken the video along on a CD. 'Are you a licensed to take copies of videos...No, well then I am afraid we cannot use that video. If we were to use that in Court it would be thrown out'. (Not true).
I persevered and eventually he went away to consult a sergeant. 20 minutes later he came back saying he would record the details as a public order offence. He took my details and recorded my answers in his computer. The questions included
'What were you wearing, was it fluorescent?'
'Were you in lycra?'
'You were riding along the yellow line, yeah?' Indicating, on Google Earth streetview, the single yellow parking restriction line you can just see at the outset in my video.
'Did you inform him you were filming him?'
'Why did you have a camera?'
Before I left I again offered my CD. No, he would not accept that and no it could not be passed on to Hounslow who were to investigate. If they took it any further they would require my camera for about 3 weeks.
I was given a reference and told that if I had any further queries I was to revisit a police station with my 9 number reference. No, I could not telephone/e mail.
I am just telling it as it is, with no comment. I will update this post as appropriate.
Postscript: I should perhaps have made it clearer that as a consequence of my persistence the details I supplied (without the video) will be passed to Hounslow Police Station for investigation of a public order offence.
UPDATE (8th November): Progress. I have been contacted by a Police Constable in Chiswick who is investigating and I have sent him a copy of the video (and the youtube link).
UPDATE (9th November): I was pretty fed up as a consequence of Thursday's events so when the following morning I filmed some more aggressive driving, I put it on a CD and sent it to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with a reminder that I had still received no substantive response to my earlier comments about the RoadSafe reporting initiative. His office will no doubt have received that yesterday. This morning between 0915 and 0930 I was sent e mail acknowledgements of the three reports I have made in the last week. The first response of any kind I have ever got using RoadSafe so things are picking up.
I also got home last night to find a letter confirming that Chiswick were investigating the reported threat to kill enclosed with a leaflet from 'Victim Support'.
I will continue to keep you posted.
UPDATE (11th November): The police advised by the CPS have decided upon no further action. I have asked them to refer it to a more senior level within the CPS and indicated that I wish to complain.
Coping with poor infrastructure. Threats to kill.
Of course islands in the centre of the road are useful for pedestrians, though perhaps not quite as useful as an old fashioned pedestrian crossing. They do seem to proliferate on my route to work and they do potentially cause problems for cyclists. The way to negotiate them safely is to take the lane and this is particularly so if you cannot trust the impatient motorist behind you. Thankfully this island near Houslow is not paired with a narrow cycle lane like the subject of my last post. However some motorists do still express a preference for us to keep to the side of the road, in this case accompanied rather charmlessly with a threat to kill.
One of the more polite adjectives he uses is 'cocky' a word I used to hear in my first year at primary school from second years. You see, we cyclists ought to recognise our inferiority to people like him in their 'motors' and we should not be upsetting the natural order of hierachy by getting about as fast as them.
A threat to kill is unlawful and I believe needs to be taken seriously when communicated from someone in a motor car to a cyclist. I contacted the Metropolitan Police about this and the answer is that they will only look into it if I go into a Met station and fill in that form. No, there is noone to whom I can e mail the video. Shall I bother?
Postscript: yes, I did bother, prompted by the many views here that I should. For the results see my next post.
One of the more polite adjectives he uses is 'cocky' a word I used to hear in my first year at primary school from second years. You see, we cyclists ought to recognise our inferiority to people like him in their 'motors' and we should not be upsetting the natural order of hierachy by getting about as fast as them.
A threat to kill is unlawful and I believe needs to be taken seriously when communicated from someone in a motor car to a cyclist. I contacted the Metropolitan Police about this and the answer is that they will only look into it if I go into a Met station and fill in that form. No, there is noone to whom I can e mail the video. Shall I bother?
Postscript: yes, I did bother, prompted by the many views here that I should. For the results see my next post.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Sharing the road with sub-standard (ok crap) lorries and crap infrastructure
I have been writing recently about the Mayor's latest cycling safety campaign and the quality of cycling infrastructure. What I saw this morning illustrates the problems cyclists face. I rode part of my journey with the best racing cyclist I know who, like me, has gained experience from a long commute. The cycle lane is rubbish, and I believe positively dangerous when combined with central pedestrain refuges. Painting it green does not make up for the fact that it is far too narrow. The lorry driver just squeezes to his left to get past the central refuge either blind to, or not caring, what is in the cycle lane. My cycling companion was unfazed. I would have been enraged. Worse many potential cyclists get so intimidated by this sort of encounter that they do not cycle. Such people need properly designed, thought out (and inevitably expensive) cycling infrastructure. Other cyclists need only the roads but with other road users required and encouraged to meet at least basic standards of coutesy and care. The half-way house of cheap inadequate provision is far worse than useless.
Reporting this standard of lorry driving to the Metropolitan Police has in my past experience been futile, but given Tim Lennon's recent and commendable success in getting information from them which suggests that their reporting website leads (sometimes) to action, perhaps I will give it another go and see whether they have any interest in HGVs that get far too close to cyclists.
The title of this entry borrows shamelessly from freewheeler, who provides a compelling critique of the quality of our infrastructure.
Reporting this standard of lorry driving to the Metropolitan Police has in my past experience been futile, but given Tim Lennon's recent and commendable success in getting information from them which suggests that their reporting website leads (sometimes) to action, perhaps I will give it another go and see whether they have any interest in HGVs that get far too close to cyclists.
The title of this entry borrows shamelessly from freewheeler, who provides a compelling critique of the quality of our infrastructure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
