Action needed to stop cyclists being victims of hit & run

[CTC London]

News Release
Jenny Jones
London Assembly Green Party Member
http://www.london.gov.uk/profile/jenny-jones
Press Office: 020 7983 4424, 07967 205 330 Jenny: 07786 277 376

Embargoed: 24th November 2011

Action needed to stop cyclists being victims of hit & run

New figures from the Metropolitan Police show that around 15 cyclists a week were killed or injured as a result of a hit and run in London last year. Cyclists account for nearly a fifth of the casualties arising from hit and runs, even though they account for only around 2% of the trips on our roads.

Pedestrians and cyclists are both disproportionately affected by hit and runs in London. 985 pedestrians were injured in a collision involving one or more vehicle that failed to stop. This is 26.5% of all the hit and run injuries, significantly higher than the 18.5% of the total casualties who are pedestrians.

A cyclist who submitted video evidence of bad driving was told by the Met Police that they could only use video evidence as part of a prosecution if it was taken by “an approved device” and included “an audit trail”.

Jenny Jones said:

“Hit and runs are a massive problem in London due to the large number of uninsured and unlicensed drivers. I can understand why some cyclists are now filming their journeys and presenting that as evidence to the police when there is a collision. The police have raised questions about the legitimacy of this evidence. However, it would be wrong of the police to automatically disregard this evidence, as it is our best hope of discouraging this irresponsible crime of hit and run. I also hope that the Commissioner will clamp down on illegal vehicles and encourage his officers to take a victim led approach, so they take cyclist and pedestrian complaints seriously.”

ENDS

3,713 casualties were injured in collisions involving one or more vehicle that failed to stop in the Metropolitan Police Service area in 2010. The table (below) shows the cyclist and pedestrian ‘hit & run’ casualties and a comparison with the total casualties for 2010.

Pedestrian Pedal cycle
No of hit & run casualties 985 709
% of hit & run casualties 26.5% 19%
% of total casualties 18.5% 14%

2. Cyclist Mathew Saywell was involved in an incident involving a driver allegedly taking a left turn whilst on his mobile phone. He submitted video evidence, taken from his head cam, to the Metropolitan Police, but was told that:

“We acknowledge your video and agree that the driver appears to have committed an offence. However, for us to bring a prosecution before a magistrates the video evidence has to be submitted and filmed via an approved device with an audit trail.”

[Phil_Lee]

The Metropolitan Police are just plain wrong.
There have been successful prosecutions in other, more enlightened parts of the country based entirely on video evidence collected on a cyclists own video camera.

If all evidence collected on non-approved video systems is automatically discarded, they wouldn't have made a fraction of the convictions they did after the recent rioting, so it seems they will accept such evidence when it suits them - and even appeal for it if they don't have enough of it!

Refusing to even submit the evidence is tantamount to complicity in the crime, and whoever made that decision should be sacked, and all their recent case load where this could be an issue reviewed as a matter of urgency.

[snibgo]

Good old Met Police, helpful as ever.

I wonder, if a cyclist was killed but happened to have been using a camera, would the police ignore the recording as it wasn't an "approved device"?

[elmo]

I do feel like putting the system to the test by filming myself beating a chief constable over the head just to see if my non-approved filming device would be any use in this situation

[thirdcrank]

I suspect that what has happened here is that frequent situations where foot soldiers have been presented with video footage and have sought advice has led to something being issued, possibly by ACPO. However, the Metropolitan Police is a big organisation and I suspect one hand is often unaware of what is going on elsewhere, so this may be relatively local. Several years ago, I spotted a newspaper article which said a named senior detective was working on a project to decide procedures for dealing with camcorder evidence. I know enough about the workings of the police to feel that cyclists would have benefited from involvement. I mentioned this on here and was shot down.

Of course camcorder footage is evidence. As I've posted before, it's often very powerful, compelling evidence so the defence will want to test it very thoroughly so it will have to be sufficiently robust to stand up to scrutiny. I'll also suggest that dealing with the cut and thrust of everyday traffic incidents which are nothing until somebody is seriously hurt, is no longer of any interest whatsoever to the police service. The link between the two is ignored. I'll suggest that insisting on higher than necessary standards of evidence gathering has a convenient side-effect of minimising a growing trend of reports. Ie, the Metropolitan Police "Service" is corporately not interested in pursuing a rising tide of complaints, once summarily fobbed off for the lack of independent evidence, now supported by what is potentially excellent evidence.

Of course, footage must be unedited. IMO, a prompt report to the police ie without time for editing and with a statement from the "cameraman"along the lines "I filmed this on my xxxxx camera and handed the memory card to xxxx of the xxxxx Police. I have not tempered with the memory card in any way..." should be enough. That's the first step of the audit trail.

In the meantime I see that Mr Hogan-Howe is actively briefing against the judgment that police cannot be offended by swearing.

=================================================================
PS Turn up at a police station with camcorder footage of say the getaway car for an armed attack on a bank truck or of a semi-conscious police officer being kicked by a group; see if you are fobbed off then on the basis that there is no audit trail and your camera is not approved .

[snibgo]

It is possible that the Met Police are fobbing off. I suspect they are. I'd prefer them to be honest: "Sorry but we are overstretched and have to prioritise. Minor traffic offences come at the bottom of our list."

Then we could have a discussion about budgets and priorities. But unless the police 'fess up, we conspiracy theorists are bound to suspect they think, "You're an inconsequential cyclist. Go away."

[Ron]

Post deleted by poster.

[karlt]

It is possible that the Met Police are fobbing off. I suspect they are. I'd prefer them to be honest: "Sorry but we are overstretched and have to prioritise. Minor traffic offences come at the bottom of our list."

Then we could have a discussion about budgets and priorities. But unless the police 'fess up, we conspiracy theorists are bound to suspect they think, "You're an inconsequential cyclist. Go away."

Actually, I'm not at all bound to the conspiracy theory when the fobbing off theory seems rather more likely. A maxim I've generally found to hold true in life is "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence."

[hexhome]

I am confused by the use of the user name CTC London, is this a spokesperon for the national body who reports on London affairs or what?
If this has been explained elsewhere, perhaps someone could tell me where.

Just click on the user name to discover all.

[Ron]

I am confused by the use of the user name CTC London, is this a spokesperon for the national body who reports on London affairs or what?
If this has been explained elsewhere, perhaps someone could tell me where.

Just click on the user name to discover all.

OK, thanks

[thirdcrank]

It is possible that the Met Police are fobbing off. I suspect they are. ...

As I've posted before, what have now been come to be known as the "bad driving" offences are notoriously difficult to prove without a collision. This has always been the case, which is why the number of 'due care' prosecutions, which used to be almost automatic after a collision, fell away so dramatically when the police stopped dealing with all but the most serious collisions. The recent entry in the Cycling Lawyer blog (Martin Porter QC) includes his discussion of this with the police when he spent a day with their cycling project team. "Subjective" is the word which comes to mind. *
Now, if many of those cases are likely to fail even when witnessed by a police officer, private citezens' video may not move things forward. That's where guidelines based on consultation are an advantage.

The underlying problem of proving subjective offences is one reason for the growth of so many "absolute" offences: crossing double white lines, speeding, ignoring STOP signs, and so much more.

* Edited to add. I since realised this bit is unclear. This is what I had in mind:

All of us who cycle on London's streets know that the quality of lorry driver is highly variable. Near misses from lorries are not pursued by the Metropolitan Police because (I learnt last week) a safe passing distance is thought to be too subjective. (My emphasis.)

[Richard Mann]

The underlying problem of proving subjective offences is one reason for the growth of so many "absolute" offences: crossing double white lines, speeding, ignoring STOP signs, and so much more.

Yeah. Like cycling on the pavement.

[Philip Benstead]

I am confused by the use of the user name CTC London, is this a spokesperon for the national body who reports on London affairs or what?
If this has been explained elsewhere, perhaps someone could tell me where.

Just click on the user name to discover all.

Dear All

CTC London Sign In name is used to pass information regarding CTC Campaigning in Greater London Authority Area.

This is to avoid any confusion with my personal view on any subject.

There are critics elsewhere who complain as to CTC low profile in GLA area I am trying to change that , but it is a slow process and many CTC member are disincline to help.

CAN YOU HELP?

However, be aware that CTC headquarters staff (see below) takes an interest in London. You may find this hard to believe, but cycle campaigning contacts in other parts of UK tell me they look at London with envy.

Roger Geffin CTC Campaigns & Policy Director roger.geffen@ctc.org.uk

Chris Peck CTC Policy Co-ordinator chris.peck@ctc.org.uk

Oliver Schick oliver@hackney-cyclists.org.uk has been appointed as CTC representative on a TfL consultation group (I do not know the name of the group yet)

CTC LONDON

You can see my pathetic attempts by going to

CTC London Yahoo Group: Join: http://tiny.cc/34rr9 these is some information there but bear with me on this.

We do have Facebook account but there is nothing on it yet

We have CTC London Twitter: @CTCLondon) but we have not used it yet


HERE ARE CTC EXISTING RIGHT TO RIDE REPRESENTATIVES

HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE SOME GAPS, CAN YOU HELP?

If YES, please contact

Laura Brooks Volunteer Support Officer – Right to Ride
righttoride@ctc.org.uk or 01483 238 323

Or Philip Benstead philipbenstead1@gmail.com or 07949801698

EXISTING CTC RIGHT TO RIDE REPRESENTATIVES NETWORK

Full Name Department E-mail
Mr. Colin Newman CTC Barking & Dagenham colinnewman(replace with at sign)ntlworld.com
Mr. Jeremy Parker CTC Barnet jeremyfparker(replace with at sign)gmail.com
Ms. Frances Renton CTC Bexley f.renton(replace with at sign)gold.ac.uk
Mr. Richard Bates CTC City London richard.bates(replace with at sign)ctc.org.uk
Mr. Philip Benstead CTC City of Westminster philipbenstead1(replace with at sign)gmail.com
Mr. Andy Bebington CTC Croydon andy(replace with at sign)bebingtons.wanadoo.co.uk
Mr. Jim Bush CTC Croydon jimbo(replace with at sign)jimbush.wanadoo.co.uk
Mr. Oliver Schick CTC Hackney oliver(replace with at sign)hackney-cyclists.org.uk
Mr. Ciron Edwards CTC Haringey ciron.edwards(replace with at sign)gmail.com
Mr. Alan Blann CTC Harrow alanandsue.blann(replace with at sign)sky.com
Mr. David Garfield CTC Havering diesgy(replace with at sign)yahoo.co.uk
Mr. John Aizelwood CTC Hounslow jaizlewood(replace with at sign)hotmail.co.uk
Mr. Tom Bogdanowicz CTC Islington tom(replace with at sign)lcc.org.uk
Mr. John Charles Barraball CTC Merton charles(replace with at sign)barraball.com
Mr. Philip Benstead CTC RB. Kensington & Chelsea philipbenstead1(replace with at sign)gmail.com
Mr. Peter Jolly CTC Redbridge peterjjolly(replace with at sign)hotmail.com
Mr. Paul Luton CTC Richmond upon Thames paul(replace with at sign)pluton.eclipse.co.uk
Mr. Colin Quemby CTC Sutton cquemby(replace with at sign)cix.compulink.co.uk
Mr. Philip Aspden CTC Tower Hamlets dude1(replace with at sign)bikerider.com
Mr. Anthony Fincham CTC Waltham Forrest Anthony.fincham(replace with at sign)mypostoffice.co.uk


HERE ARE THE GAPS IN CTC RIGHT TO RIDE REPRESENTATIVES NETWORK

CAN YOU HELP?

Full Name Department E-mail
CTC Vacant Wandsworth CTC Wandsworth
CTC Vacant Brent CTC Brent
CTC Vacant Bromley CTC Bromley
CTC Vacant Camden CTC Camden
CTC Vacant Ealing CTC Ealing
CTC Vacant Enfield CTC Enfield
CTC Vacant Greenwich CTC Greenwich
CTC Vacant Hammersmith & Fulham CTC Hammersmith & Fulham
CTC Vacant Hillingdon CTC Hillingdon
CTC Vacant Lambeth CTC Lambeth
CTC Vacant Lewisham CTC Lewisham
CTC Vacant Newham CTC Newham
CTC Vacant RB. Kingston Upon Thames CTC RB. Kingston Upon Thames
CTC Vacant Southwark CTC Southwark

END

[Ron]

Thank you for clarification Philip. Sadly lack of volunteers appears to be a national problem, I am supposedly covering an area of 10,000 square miles as the lone RtR rep.

[stephenjubb]

sad to say it but I was one of those hit and run casualties in london 2010.