'Insufficient Evidence' again and why the Met Police Roadsafe is a waste of time

I have now received the closest thing I am going to get to a response to the points raised in my letter to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
After explaining that Roadsafe is for intelligence gathering rather than investigating or prosecuting (a point also made to me by Jenny Jones MP MLA), the letter from the officer responsible for Roadsafe goes on:

The John Lewis incident is this one:

(By-the-by I sent a copy of the video to John Lewis 7 months ago but have never received a word of regret or apology from what I previously considered a highly moral organisation).  Roadsafe clearly considered that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute as it is one of the rare cases they forwarded to the 'TCJU'.  They might as well not have bothered because the TCJU viewed the footage and decided there was insufficient evidence.  A decision which cuts down on their workload and need not be justified to anybody.

However Roadsafe were responsible for deciding there was insufficient evidence in this case:

The suggestion that there is 'insufficient evidence' because the number plate is dictated by me contemporaneously to camera rather than captured on the video is frankly laughable and I have emailed DI Hands to tell her.  Assuming Global Eyes have a vehicle with that registration the idea of a defence that the lorry was elsewhere and I got the registration wrong when coincidently it was another of their lorries is self evidently feeble.

If you wanted to set up a unit to give noisy irksome vulnerable road users the impression you were doing something, when you in fact lack the resources or will to do anything, it would be hard to design something more fit for that purpose than roadsafe.  Call it intelligence gathering (so as to see whether there is a problem with bad driving and vulnerable road users!?); apply an absurdly high threshold as to sufficiency of evidence; where the sufficiency of evidence is obvious, refer to the black hole known as TCJU and if anybody complains tell them they should be standing in line at a police station to have their complaints ignored there.  Tell vulnerable road users that you have written to drivers or warned them, or whatever it takes, but do not lift a finger to prosecute.  If they complain most of them will not know what sufficient evidence is so use that. If all else fails pray in aid the public interest.

I have tried to make constructive suggestions and criticisms and just been fobbed off by police and politicians alike.

Sad to say I have all but given up commuting into London now.  It can hardly be described as a pleasant experience and there is no meaningful support from the police.

Inquest into the death of Daniel Cox

Yesterday the inquest took place into the death of Daniel Cox, the promising young artist killed as a consequence of being run down on his bicycle by a left turning lorry at Dalston Junction on 02.02.11.  Ross Lydall of the Evening Standard was there and reports the verdict of 'accidental death'.  Apparently the concern of the Coroner was directed not so much at lorries with avoidable blind spots running down cyclists, or the totally unenforced contravention of red traffic lights when motorised vehicles cross the line into space before the Advanced Stop Line reserved for cycles, but instead on the paradoxical situation that ASLs might be placing cyclists in danger.
So, there we have it, the inquest into the 'accidental' death of Daniel Cox reveals as the most disturbing feature of his death that the ASL might have placed him in danger.  Since it was the ASL apparently that killed Daniel, we can now see why the CPS dropped all charges against the driver.
I very much hope that the Coroner appropriately grilled that driver over his decision to encroach into the advanced stop area in order (so he apparently claimed) to get a better view of the junction and over the fact that he did not apparently have the benefit of a legal nearside mirror.
I ought to stress that I was not there and do not have access to the evidence but what I have read suggests that the lorry driver goes through the first stop line (contravening the red light) indicating right and eventually stops at the Advance Stop Line.  A cyclist coming from behind (in all probability knowing the lights had just turned to red), would not see either a left indication or that the lorry had blocked the ASL.  Cyclist perfectly sensibly moves ahead to the second line where he ought to be well ahead of the lorry but, as he finds when he gets there, is alongside (or maybe only slightly ahead of the lorry - I cannot know) because the lorry is further ahead than it should be.  Lorry driver sees nothing of the cyclist either because of the inadequacy of his observation or the inadequacy of his mirrors (or both).  Cyclist cannot go further forward without jumping a red light.  Lorry driver indicates left and runs down cyclist.
So how is it that it is ASLs, rather than (say) defective lorries or bad driving that is putting us in danger?  I can only imagine it is that the very existence of ASLs lulls us into a false sense of security that there will be a space for us ahead of the traffic that we should use.  Whereas in reality of course there is no such space because so many motorists, and all those paid to enforce the law,  do not give the slightest attention to an ASL, to the extent that it is quite unremarkable for a lorry driver to say that he encroached onto a space reserved for cyclists to get a better view.
To that extent perhaps the Coroner has some sort of perverse point: either enforce ASLs or do away with them.  However the blind eye being turned to planks whilst identifying this mote is astounding.

Subsequent thought: the CPS do seem to be a lot more willing to prosecute in cases involving the death of a pedestrian than cases involving the death of a cyclist.

British Cycling calls on the Lord Chancellor to review the role of the Criminal Justice System in protecting vulnerable road users

British Cycling's letter to the Lord Chancellor can be read here.  Item (b) concerns the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in deciding the appropriate (if any) charge where a death has been caused.  I have vented my frustration on these pages at Police/CPS decisions that there is either 'insufficient evidence' or it is 'not in the public interest' to prosecute each time, thus far, that I have submitted evidence of bad driving.  These are of course petty irritations when compared to the far more serious circumstances of a death or serious injury.


Ross Lydall of the Evening Standard reported yesterday that the driver of the left turning lorry, which crushed Daniel Cox in Dalston in February 2011, will not be charged.  I do not have access to the evidence.  However, Ross reports a CPS spokesperson as saying,  “We concluded that we could no longer prove that Simon Weatherley did not use his indicators to show his intention to turn left, an essential element in proving that he was driving without due care."


It seems that the prosecution was brought on the basis that the lorry driver had not indicated left and that when evidence emerged that he might have indicated left, a prosecution was regarded as untenable.  I find this disturbing.  Every case will turn on its own facts and it is surely a jury question as to whether it is enough to have indicated.  Every lorry driver ought to be aware of the possibility that there is a cyclist to his nearside.  It is hardly relevant that an experienced cyclist would do anything to avoid being there.  By definition if cycling is expanding not every cyclist will be experienced.  Furthermore Highway Authorities, many motorists and some cyclists have an expectation that cyclists should be on the nearside margins of the road.  It is not therefore sufficient for a left turning lorry driver simply to indicate and lack of an indication is not therefore 'an essential element' in proving an offence.  A careful and considerate lorry driver does not turn to his left unless he is sure, by the use of mirrors, detectors or otherwise, that there is no cyclist on his nearside.  If the driver does not have adequate mirrors he must take that handicap into account when deciding whether it is safe to turn left or indeed to drive at all.


I cannot say whether the decision not to prosecute this driver was the right one but I can say that I find the reasons given for the decision  disturbing.


There is an inconsistency between that decision and the contrary decision to prosecute the tanker driver who seriously injured the journalist, James Moore.  As Ross Lydall's report of that case reveals, there was CCTV footage showing that the tanker driver was indicating whilst waiting at traffic lights before taking the turn.  That driver was acquitted by a jury.


The evidential test should be considered satisfied if there are reasonable prospects of a conviction.  That means, if the test is applied appropriately, the prosecution can expect to win some and lose some.  Merely because it has lost one case where a lorry driver was indicating left does not mean that indicating left should henceforth be treated as a literal 'get out of jail' card.  It is emphatically not 'an essential element' to a charge of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving that the driver can be proved not to have been indicating.

More on sentencing: R v Zeeshan - a turning point?

On May 30th Anjum Zeeshan was sentenced at Guildford Crown Court to 9 months imprisonment and a two year driving ban following his conviction by a jury of causing death by careless driving.  Zeeshan's victim was John Austin who was cycling in the same direction on his bicycle.  Zeeshan ran into the cyclist from behind in broad daylight.  He claimed not to have seen Mr Austin before colliding with him, blaming the sunlight and even suggesting (without a shred of evidence) that Mr Austin had come off the pavement.  In fact, as the Judge pointed out, Zeeshan obscured his own vision by travelling much too close to the car in front.

It is fair to say that with an immediate custodial sentence, Zeeshan was not treated with the degree of leniency that had become all too common-place.  (Look under 'Sentence' here and you will note that he was treated more like the cyclist Darren Hall, than like the motorist Matthew Rice).  Should Zeeshan appeal against his sentence, any such appeal would form a useful opportunity for the Court of Appeal to repair the damage done in Rice.  Of course, the ban could usefully be longer but this case is at least a step towards that which British Cycling with the backing of The Times are seeking to achieve, namely justice for the victims of bad driving.

One might think that Zeeshan did not have much of a defence.  Oddly at his first trial in February, a jury had failed to reach a verdict which resulted in the need for a re-trial.  Those responsible for selecting charges and bringing prosecutions should note that if they select the right charge and have the right evidence, juries will almost invariably (in the end) bring in a just verdict.

"Not in the public interest to prosecute"

Last month I reported a piece of bad driving to the police.  It was another close overtake in Hounslow and when I initiated a conversation with the driver at the next set of lights, it was quite apparent that his lack of consideration was not due to failing to see me or a momentary lapse in concentration but was because he held a deep seated prejudice against cyclists.  If I got in his way he felt entitled to run me down, he wanted me to ride on the pavement next time and, most incongruously, he had something against cyclists like me riding fast in Richmond Park.  (London Dynamo organise time trials in Richmond Park and it is a popular place for cyclists to train, though I have never cycled there).
When I made my report I made it clear that it was the bad driving I really objected to.  The verbal threats were, in my view, distinguishable from the Lomas case not least because he had not sought me out to deliver the threat from a moving vehicle but was responding to me when I was in a safe position.  What the verbal exchange indicated to me was that his bad driving was quite deliberate.  I am struck by how, almost universally, motorists who run down cyclists claim not to have seen them.  Yet when motorists have come close to running me down, it almost invariably emerges in subsequent 'discussion' that they saw me only too well and chose deliberately not to take care.  'SMIDSY' is a completely unacceptable excuse even if genuine.  My own experience convinces me that it is often a smokescreen for something worse and aptly described by many cyclists as 'SMIDGAF'.
Yesterday the police told me that the driver was sorry and had been cautioned.  I assume the caution must have been for a Public Order Offence relating to his verbal threats, since cautions for Road Traffic Act offences are not given.  When I repeated that I would have preferred to see a prosecution for driving without due care/consideration, I was told that the police had decided it was 'not in the public interest to take it any further than a caution'.
I do respectfully question this interpretation of the public interest.  Our democratically elected Parliament has legislated that anyone driving a motor vehicle on a road without due care and consideration for other road users is guilty of an offence.  The law does not require that this lack of care/consideration has caused an accident.  There is helpful guidance in the Highway Code which is taken into account in determining guilt and includes the following:

After I wrote (the day before this incident as it happens) to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner with a copy to Jenny Jones about the difficulties in getting action taken against bad drivers, I got a response from Jenny Jones telling me that Roadsafe was for gathering information and that she advised me to report bad driving to my local police station.  The response from Roadsafe was to the effect that they try without success to get appallingly bad drivers prosecuted.  I am a great fan of Jenny Jones but if she is advising us to report bad driving to our police stations she is seriously out of touch with the reality of policing in London.  Either there is insufficient evidence or, if evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient, it is not deemed to be in the public interest to prosecute.  Furthermore in what other area are the police absolved of any obligation, beyond information gathering, to act upon a crime that has come to their attention?  I have a degree of sympathy with the Roadsafe view that when they do their bit, others in the criminal justice chain do not do theirs, as this also affects my willingness to bother to report bad driving.  However we cannot all just give up.
I am sometimes accused of representing only a minority clique of 'MAMIL's.  However what upsets me most about drivers like the one in charge of this Landrover, is not that they run me down.  I have developed strategies that, thus far, means that they don't.  It is that they make cycling an unpleasant and subjectively dangerous experience.  The roads should not only be available to the battle hardened.
An apology given to the police in interview may be better than nothing but it is obviously not equivalent to an apology at the time.  Had the driver said at the lights 'I am sorry, I will take care not to do that again', I would not have reported him.  If he was genuinely sorry at interview then I would like to see a prosecution for inconsiderate driving stayed on condition that he attend a bikeability course for cycling on the road.

My witness statement is here and the video below:

Inquest into the death of Svitlana Tereschenko

Ross Lydall reports in today's The Evening Standard the comments of the Deputy Coroner, Dr Shirley Radcliffe, that 'nobody is to blame' for the death of Ms Tereschenko on the Bow roundabout last November.

This has prompted me to update my criminal sentencing table with cases as they come to my attention where no charges have been pursued against the driver who has collided fatally with a cyclist.

Improving the Safety of Cyclists

A regular reader was puzzled by my preference for the evidence given by CTC's Vice-President Josie Dew over that of President Jon Snow at last week's Transport Select Committee and I promised a fuller explanation.

First, I like Jon Snow (a lot).  He introduced me to cycling 10 years ago, shepherding me round my first 100 mile ride and I hope it is not presumptuous of me to regard him as a friend.  He is a high profile figure and an ambassador for cycling.  I am sure he has been an inspiration to many more than just me and I was delighted when he accepted the Presidency of the CTC.  I have never met Josie and did not really know who she was until watching the select committee.

Second I am acutely conscious that what divides the opinions of cyclists is minute compared to that which unites them.  John Cleese's brilliant satire has the People's Front of Judea loathing the Judean People's Front more than they loathe the Romans.  Cyclists can hopefully avoid that.
Having said that, we are not compelled to agree with each other on everything and I have my reservations about Jon's oft repeated and sincerely held views that the roads in London are not safe for cyclists, that cyclists and vehicles do not mix and that they need to be separated.  Josie's willingness to ride her daughter to school on the roads but to lament the standards of some motorists and the weak way in which our laws are enforced against criminal motorists chimed much more with me.

I have no problem with people who seek more and better segregated facilities in the belief that it will encourage more cyclists.  However there is a very real threat that things could be made worse for cyclists than they already are by jeopardising our entitlement to use most roads.  We should not forget the case of Daniel Cadden.  The same police and CPS who do not have the time or inclination to pursue motorists who endanger cyclists, found the time and inclination to prosecute Daniel for inconsiderate cycling because he was riding his bike in the road instead of a nearby unsatisfactory cycle track.  The CTC assisted his successful appeal.  The CTC also made representations over the Highway Code to ensure it was clear that the use of cycling facilities is not mandatory.  I applaud the CTC for this and it is a major reason that I am a member.

My own personal experience is that there are plenty of motorists who resent our right to use the roads and would like to see us off them.  Only yesterday morning I was 'buzzed' and sworn at by a motorist who said (in effect and removing the colourful language) 'This is a road not a cycleway and if you get in my way I will run you down'.  I wish I could say this was an unusual experience.

Different cyclists may have different requirements.  My commute is only marginally practicable at 20 mph.  If I had to slow down for significant sections it would become completely impracticable.  A 20 mph speed limit would mean that all those motor vehicles would no longer 'need' to squeeze past me.  Even if I represent a minority of cyclists, we probably cover a disproportionate number of miles and I look to the CTC to continue to represent our interests as well as those of other cyclists.

Although Jon made clear, as he always does, that he was speaking as a private citizen and in a personal capacity, it is a reasonable assumption that he (and Josie) were invited to the Select Committee because of their CTC roles.

I was not keen to hear Jon and James Harding propose as policy a 20 mph limit in residential areas but to be lifted to 30mph (in residential areas, I should stress) where there was a separate cycle track.  James Harding was calling upon an unholy alliance between motorists wishing to go faster and cyclists seeking segregation.  The aim of both being to get cyclists off the roads.  Cyclists remaining on the roads after these facilities have been designed, built and adjudged adequate (very likely by non-cyclists) would not benefit from reduced speed limits.

Separate cycle lanes are not necessarily safer.  I mentioned I would like to see statistics on this.  This does not seem to me unreasonable if they are promoted as a safety measure.  Most of us will have seen diagrams like this one:

Even if you give the priority to the cyclists, I am a defensive cyclist (and so should you be) and you cannot rely upon motorists giving way.

I am all for 'Going Dutch' but my understanding of this is that it involves at least as much control over where motorists may go as of where cyclists may go.  I am all for putting up bollards in the middle of our streets that we can whizz by but which block the path of through motorists.  The trouble is that 'The Times' is not calling for infrastructure changes that may adversely impact motorists and almost all politicians have difficulty with this too.  I acknowledge with gratitude that The Times campaign is calling for 20 mph speed limits but their editor is solicitous of the interests of motorists who may be affected by this.   Of course in practice a 20 mph speed limit in London would not slow overall motoring journey times save in the dead of night.  We run a very real risk of heading for the worst of all possible worlds with inferior infrastructure used as an excuse not to lower speed limits in residential areas and with a growing expectation that cyclists are not entitled to the roads.

This is essentially a non-political blog and I am not the holder of a vote for this Thursday.  However Jenny Jones was surely right at yesterday's hustings to call for lower speed limits and better policing of motorists.  This strikes a chord with me.  As it happens I wrote to the Met Police Commissoner last weekend and sent a copy to Jenny.  You may read it here.

Fortunately I can afford to provoke a storm.  I am not a politician and do not sell newspapers.

Postscript:
A transcript is available here.  This is the bit that worried me about 20mph limits in residential areas:

Q423 Chair: What about the 20 mph speed limit suggested for local roads? Would that make a big difference?

Josie Dew: Yes, it definitely would. Past Molly’s school there is a 40 mph speed limit, which means I am often overtaken at 50 mph with children on the back. I went to the council last December and said, "Can we get a 20 mph speed limit past the school?" If you hit a cyclist at 40 mph, 90% of children would die. If you hit them at 20 mph, 5% would die. That is a huge difference. They said, "Oh well, we can’t really do that." There is all this umming and ahhing. They just make excuses. You have to get on and do it. They said it has to be petition-led, so I have to go traipsing round the whole village. Some people say, "I don’t want to slow my speed because I want to get to work." Portsmouth has put in 20 mph speed limits.

Q424 Chair: If there was a system of a default 20 mph speed limit on local roads, would that be something the other panellists would support?

James Harding: In areas where there are not segregated cycle ways. We would argue for a 20 mph speed limit in residential areas where there are not segregated cycle ways. One of the things about that, as Josie says, is that it is not only safer, but it would reinforce the sense that the interests of cyclists and drivers are aligned. Drivers want to go faster, in which case there need to be segregated cycle ways.

Jon Snow: I agree with James.

Q425 Mr Leech: I am interested to hear why you think that the residential streets where there are segregated cycle ways should not have the 20 mph limit. There is a danger, if you keep it at 30 mph on those streets, that drivers are less inclined to stick to the 20 mph speed limit on the other roads. Is there any reason why you have gone for that particular view?

James Harding: As Josie said, the reason is that 20 mph makes it safer. I think that you need to put in place many more segregated cycle ways and you need to incentivise drivers behind that idea too. Being able to free up drivers to drive a little more quickly where there are segregated cycle ways reinforces that point.