MONITORING POLICE FORCES

[Ricardo]

Either way, without a collision, careless / inconsiderate driving has always been difficult to prove, even with sound witnesses.

I recently got a message from my local friendly neighbourhood WPC to the effect that they were not inclined to sanction a driver I'd filmed driving at me. Why? Well, apart from that fact that we didn't collide, the driver was "talked to", and during the conversation said to the WPC "well, I'm a driving instructor, and my judgement is good, the cyclist is overreacting" (or words to that effect). The WPC seems to have nodded in agreement and passed along the driving instructors message to me. So I got a friend to put up the film for them to see (they'd talked to the "driving instructor" based on three stills I'd provided).

Perhaps I'm just overreacting after all.

I'm not exactly risk-averse (I'd bought the helmet cam for ziplining and was trying it out on rides), but I tend to choose my risks rather than having them imposed on me like this. I've only been riding for a few months, and I have to say that this was pretty off-putting, especially as the wing mirror missed my handlebars by a very small number of inches, and 20/30 metres previously there'd been branch debris in the edge. I ended up coasting with the inboard pedal raised so that it didn't snag the verge.

But back on topic, it is the flaccid response to this kind of menace-in-the-making that ends up in the courts only after someone else's death. IMO!

SMICGAM - Sorry mate, I couldn't give a monkeys...

[snibgo]

Jeepers, that was dreadful diving. He wasn't passing the lorry when he came to you, so he had plenty of space and time to pull in. If he teaches other people to drive, no wonder there are some appalling motorists.

[Ricardo]

I did contact the DSA (Driving Standards), but their official position is that unless the thin blue line does something about it, they will twiddle their corporate thumbs. Since the WPC involved seems awestruck by this "drivers" credentials, I guess he gets to try the same stunt on someone else until he gets "a result". Failing that, he can of course pass on his skills to a host of young impressionable people.

Seems the law is less about prevention and more about mopping up the blood later.

[thirdcrank]

Ricardo

Without getting too involved with the detail, this seems to be an example of why I was so keen that cyclists should have some contact with the man at the Met who was going to sort out video evidence. Your experience is apparently not unusual.

Tying this in with the thread, if something was going to be done in the way of an approach to the Home Office, ACPO CPS etc., then asking them why this type of evidence was routinely ignored might get people thinking.

For years, the absence of independent witnesses has been quoted as a reason for enforcement being inappropriate or impossible and I can understand the reasons for that. I suspect, however, that a lot of frontline officers may be unsure how to deal with this relatively new type of evidence. Of course, a side effect of a lack of witnesses has inevitably been fewer prosecutions. This means that things are not organised to cope with a big increase in allegations supported by strong video evidence. It may be that in some, even the majority of cases, an amateur cameraman's expectations are too high. That is no reason to dismiss them all or to fob off reports. This suggests that published guidelines would be invaluable.

IMO the low point in all this was reached in the Martin Porter case. t's been mentioned a lot but it's here (scroll down to ScottLomas convicted.)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/sear ... -results=7

For anybody who has missed it before Martin Porter QC reported an incident supported by video evidence and was systematically fobbed off until he wrote personally to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A conviction (on a guilty plea) was the eventual result. I suppose everybody in your position could try writing to the DPP, beginning "Although I am not Queens's Counsel (other QC's who have been fobbed off can omit that bit) I am writing to you personally to ask you to intervene ....etc" Of course, he's only the head honcho at the CPS, with no direct authority over the police. It may be that anything not from a QC might be intercepted at a lower level, Even so, if enough people asked for his help, he might begin to recognise a problem.

Or some national cycling body could take up the whole issue.
=======================================================================
I've had a bit of a rethink and on reflection I can't see any point in embarrassing the Cycling Silk. I'm sure that he can see the iniquity in this but it's hardly his fault and he has spoken out pretty strongly against what is happening. (This in a profession where the slightest rock of the boat can be fatal.)

It seems to me that the basic point which it is completely proper to make to the DPP, in his capacity as the head of the CPS, is that the high standards his organisation has tried to set, especially in terms of independent witnesses, have ironically led to a lowering of standards in the investigation of allegations of bad driving to the extent that even reports supported by good video evidence are routinely rejected at the earliest stage, often with reference to the CPS as justification for no action being taken. While it is appreciated that investigation of offences is a matter for the police, he is a senior official in the criminal justice system and presumably has concerns about what is being done, or rather not done, in his name.

[anothereye]

Jeepers, that was dreadful diving. He wasn't passing the lorry when he came to you, so he had plenty of space and time to pull in. If he teaches other people to drive, no wonder there are some appalling motorists.

+1

[Ricardo]

Ricardo

Without getting too involved with the detail, this seems to be an example of why I was so keen that cyclists should have some contact with the man at the Met who was going to sort out video evidence. Your experience is apparently not unusual.

... I suppose everybody in your position could try writing to the DPP

Thanks, TC, for the food for thought. I've long had the feeling that the police can flexibly consider whether they're going to do something or let an offence lie, based just on the pressures of the moment, and no matter what evidence is used. Part of it is, as you say, the novel use of video evidence, probably because of the fears that it could be tampered with ("chain of custody" problems). But do they seriously believe that a vindictive cyclist could somehow fake someone else's number plate into incident footage and nail the wrong guy - how probable is that?! All these spurious fears lead them to believe that a case wouldn't be worth pursuing because the evidence isn't gathered and bagged by the police themselves (yet a woman off on a racist rant in a train gets hauled up - so they obviously can do it if the will is there). The legal system has to take a lot of the blame, because good evidence can be discredited on the most spurious grounds, so a defence lawyer can make it not worth the police's while to make a case - and justice goes out the window right there.

In my case, from a phone call I received a couple of days ago, the "instructor" told the WPC "yes, I remember the incident" - and they have the film - so what else is there for them to do - the guy admitted it! But wait, he is an instructor, so that's okay (meanwhile prejudicing every teenager that might have tried the same thing and got the book thrown at them).

I only got the film put online so that the police "could have another, better, look" and give them an opportunity to reconsider what seems to be a set decision. I hope they will do the right thing because it is right, not necessarily because the DPP leans on them, but if they decide to drop it, the higher authorities will get a look.

I feel good about riding, but I don't think the system is set up to protect riders, even those that make an effort to protect themselves. We're vulnerable enough on the roads without being vulnerable in law too, IMO.

Back on the "monitoring police forces" notion that started the thread - I'm not certain how it'd work. There's an incidents thread here that I noticed yesterday and thought "why not" with my film, since it was already online, and perhaps that's the best we can do - report incidents, flag them on some high-profile forum, with evidence where possible and follow through to report on outcomes. In the meantime, tell the BBC that it is there! I saw the blogged incident on the BBC, and although they can't be expected to carry every story, perhaps the thought that these incidents are being watched by the media (together with the outcomes) might also incentivise "the authorities". Machievellian and subversive? Belmarsh here I come!

Thanks, TC for the pointers, I will keep them close to hand.

Richard (Ricardo was what my dad called me - amongst other things - and he wasn't Spanish either!)

[Ricardo]

Jeepers, that was dreadful diving.

While I'm here, and not wanting to derail the legitimate topic any further (while doing just that), I thought I should add that I couldn't afford to stop. I had little idea of how high the verge was at any point, so putting down my left foot could have tipped me just when I didn't need it, putting down my right foot would have got it run over, plus the chance of a pedal strike on the verge sending me all over the place (and then when the facts were reconstructed/reinvented it would obviously have been my fault), not to mention the fallen twigs, branches, stones, pizza boxes in the verge (that by sheer chance were not there, the verges are pretty bad along that stretch, as often as not). At first I expected him to shuffle back behind the truck, as I'd have done, I couldn't believe he didn't do that, and by the time he should have done the sensible thing, it was too late for me. I seriously considered stopping centrally in that carriageway so that at least I'd not get a glancing blow and he might have been inclined to slow down and possibly hurt me less. In the end I thought that I might just squeeze through if I coasted right on the verge with the left pedal up and my right leg tucked in as far as I could get it, and even then the stupid s*d's wing mirror nearly had me off. If I'd remembered that danger I'd have let go the right grip and tucked my arm away too, saving a finger or three. So, coasting that way was the only way to minimise my size as a target. Its surprising how quickly the ideas come when needed.

The only time I've come closer to being offed was actually when a roadie (yes, cyclists are not immune to fits of stupidity) decided that his best line was along the other edge of the country lane to the boring traditional one, where I had the temerity to be riding the opposite way. My hybrid could deal with the actually-not-that-bad surface a little better, so I dodged when I realised he wasn't "paying attention", but whenever I hear another redneck anti-cyclist rant I also think about cyclists such as those, who have to shoulder a lot of the blame.

Still, 99.9% of my rides are bliss.

[[XAP]Bob]

That's insanely bad driving - can you get your local news station to cover it?

If he's actually a driving instructor then he should be publicly shown to be inept, preferably to his potential customers, before they pay!

[snibgo]

When I first saw Ricardo's video, I spoke a word I rarely use and won't repeat here. Then I stepped through the video frame by frame to work out the relative positions of the three vehicles.

The thing is, I'm a cyclist. I know what it's like to be faced by an oncoming car. To me, it is potential death on wheels. And then I realise the motorist could have simply steered left a bit without even needing to brake, and I can't figure out why he didn't.

But someone who doesn't cycle probably sees it differently. They see the gap between the car and the verge on the left of the picture and realise it is just about wide enough for a bike, so what's the problem? And the cyclist wasn't knocked down, so that proves there was enough room. This may have been the thinking of both the driver and the WPC. Add into the mix that the driver is an instructor so needs (I assume) a spotless licence, and I'd expect him to shrug off the incident.

I hope the driver privately acknowledges his mistake, even if he won't admit it. If the WPC had been a cyclist, I hope she would have seen the driver's profession as an aggravating factor. I hope this driver is prosecuted for recklessness.

Still, 99.9% of my rides are bliss.

That's always worth remembering.

[thirdcrank]

Ricardo

A couple of bits of clarification.

Individual police officers have wide discretion to enforce the law as they see fit, so long as they exercise that discretion reasonably. It's only to be expected that they don't waste time submitting files they know will go nowhere eg no independent witnesses. I'm saying that because independent witnesses are even rarer than rocking horse doodahs, "nothing we can do" can become the default response, even where there might be a good alternative such as decent video.

Their efforts will also be concentrated increasingly on externally imposed (and monitored) priorities, set at a national level by central government and locally by police authorities (soon to be replaced in this connection by elected commissioners.) This is why I keep on about getting SMIDSY etc recognised as a problem, when it might become some sort of a priority. It's also why I think that some sort of monitoring by the CTC would not achieve much.

The question of the admissiblilty of evidence is something that the police obviously have to be aware of, but they don't set the rules. A video recording is potentially a powerful bit of evidence so you can be sure that in the event of a "Not Guilty" plea, the defence would fight hard to have it excluded.

In the broadest terms, to be admissible, the evidence would have to be "probative" (ie contributing to proving the case) and not unfair (this is a bit harder to define but if a driver was charged with careless driving, footage of them swearing at the cameraman afterwards it might be excluded because it was prejudicial and not probative. Think of the exclusion of previous convictions.) Then it would have to be proved that it had not been tampered with in any way. Normally, the "cameraman" would be expected to give evidence about the incident, then that they had filmed it, that they had not tampered with it in any way, that they had handed the memory card to the police etc. (Going back to priorities, this could be very time consuming and in minor cases, it might not be seen as being justified.)

Mention of evidence prompts me to mention that anybody expecting the police to take enforcement action has to be prepared to put their mouth (on oath) where their mouth is, so to speak. IME experience, quite a lot of people expect the police to deal with all manner of things without themselves *getting involved." I can easily understand the many reasons which deter people from giving evidence but without it, a case will go nowhere. Also IME, for every police officer fobbing people off, there are at least two people reporting things where they just want the police to give somebody a telling off. I wonder on what basis anybody thinks that's possible? (I'll post a clarification for anybody who cannot see this.) Present company excepted of course, but I suspect that some of the people with the biggest youtube output would lack the bottle to go to court and give evidence.

[Ricardo]

I'd be okay with statements and appearing, if necessary. I say that because I'm pretty sure that the driver would see the folly of contesting the charge (especially as the WPC has already told me that he remembered the incident - odd in itself), although if it might affect his employment he might try something on. There's 45 minutes of film before that which indicates how I'd been riding, most of which would send people off to sleep. It would really come down to whether that bit of film is enough as it stands.

I'm surprised that a defence could try to have direct evidence excluded, to me that'd be a sign that it is incriminating more than a sign that it was compromised! Well, I'm a lot more cynical these days, I guess. Perhaps he taught this bus driver... makes me feel quite fortunate.

At least I kept the raw film as it came, out of the camera. Its a ContourHD, so there's no option to view it in-camera, it has to be transferred to a computer no matter what. The stuff online is created from a straight copy of the original, edited down on a different computer.

Ah well, we'll see.

[thirdcrank]

.... I'm surprised that a defence could try to have direct evidence excluded, ....

It happens all the time and there's nothing sinister about it. The stronger the evidence, the more they will look for reasons to try to have it excluded. That's part of the job of the defence team. Anybody who has been on a jury will know that they are often being sent out every five minutes. That's because the defence and prosecution are arguing (making submissions to the judge) over whether this or that evidence is admissible. This is why the jury must sometimes think "The evidence is so weak, why on earth are we here?" It either means that a star witness has not turned up, or a significant chunk of the prosection case has been excluded and they haven't heard it. Obviously, the police are trained about the rules of evidence and before a case gets as far as court the CPS will have cast a lawyer's eye over it, even more so in a crown court case. If the police and CPS have done their job correctly, these applications to exclude evidence will fail, as they often do.

Remember that a criminal trial in the UK isn't everybody sitting around a table having a chinwag. The prosecution bats first and the defence tries to expose a flaw, AKA a reasonable doubt.

None of what I'm saying is intended to detract from the appropriate use of headcam evidence or similar. On the contrary, it has the potential to provide compelling evidence, and it's a crying shame that the police service doesn't always seem to be geared up to deal with it. This is the significance of my reference to the DCI in the Met. We should have been there, getting our spokes (and complete bikes) in. IMO.

[Ricardo]

Yes, there are often complaints when someone gets off the hook on a technicality, and I can see why the evidence has to go through tests before we waste taxpayer money on a lawyer cat-fight. Its a pity that an adversarial process such as a trial often involves removing a truth because of some minor detail. Sometimes, though, it creates some justice. Donkeys years ago my father was driving the family car around a roundabout when a "track rod end" failed and one of the wheels decided it didn't want to go straight anymore. He steered it as well as he could to the centre of the roundabout but couldn't get up onto the grass there, so was blocking it. The police came and tried to make a case about causing an obstruction (well yes, he was, much like any accident or incident does) and the worst part was that they also tried to make a case about a tyre with a bald spot. The fact that the rubber that used to cover that bald spot was in a long dark streak behind the locked tyre seemed for the moment to be irrelevant. My poor old dad got hauled up to answer for these heinous crimes and was let off only on a technicality, the police got the times out by an hour because the clocks had changed! I suspect there was more to it than that (I was quite young at the time), perhaps the defence made their points and even if they were dismissed (they were just repeating my father's side, after all) thus allowing this technical evidence-gathering fubar to save the day. Sometimes it ain't so bad.

I think if camera evidence is allowed to be taken home and loaded to a computer, parts edited for the web or for the police, and a conviction still happens (as had happened recently with the barrister, and also previously with a WVM that also featured on the Beeb, plus the racist woman's train rant etc) then a precedent is set for that kind of evidence to work. The DPP/CPS/whoever probably need to clarify the use and procedures for public video evidence. I suppose the main problem they could have is the one where video evidence previously publicised could prejudice an outcome - then again, if exactly the same thing is shown at a trial for exactly that purpose...

Presently I'm happy to wait for WPC to get around to looking at it all over again and saying "no" before I have to go any further. Hopefully she'll have an epiphany.

Back on topic - it seems there's some consensus that monitoring police responses has to be taken in light of the problems with evidence and the lack of clarity of procedures for dealing with it. There have been a few positive results now, and so some method is evidently working. Some forces will always be better than others I suppose, depending on demographics, those with a big drug/gang problem are probably stretched further. There's also a horrible amount of admin involved in anything they decide to progress, and probably a variety of perceptions about the willingness of victims to follow through.

Procedures can get embarrassing though, I was shot a few years ago (air rifle) while driving and reported it at a friend's place (I dropped in for independent witness of my injury). Despite the fact that it was a serious incident (this fool was randomly potting people in a busy place) we were treated to ringside seats at an argument between 2 forces because we'd reported it in one area but the offence was committed (and being committed) in the other force's patch. There was something surreal about that. Obviously the investigation fell in the force's patch where the shooter was, but there seemed to be a big administrational problem about reporting incidents out of area from the discussions we were privy to. Fortunately my situational awareness is reasonably good and I realised the shooter's position as I was driving away. They raided the place, found all the stuff and justice was done. Even in that case we had to fight for something to be done, though, I can remember having to point out that I was in a car, if a cyclist was hit as I'd been, they'd potentially have been off in front of a truck and nobody'd have realised the true cause. I was glad to get a result, but every time a member of the public has to campaign for action even when genuine risk is there, its no surprise that people get jaded and cynical. So while I appreciate the problems (and I did back room work for the police many years ago) I get very concerned about the filtering that goes on in the name of efficiency. Its all too easy to discard an incident as a one-off until the one-off involves us directly and we have to live with it, and they must see an awful lot of one-offs in their daily routine.

I swear sometimes that if I bought a crofter's cottage somewhere on a remote island and stared at the sky for a living, some b*gger would come along and nick my boat!

My wife's looking for a better bike than her present knackered MTB so we can head out together, and I'm half inclined to keep putting her off the idea, because if I'm an idiot magnet, it is safer to other people if I ride alone!

[Duke3376]

Whilst doing LEJOG August 2011 I was involved in a hit and run in Wick, after getting off the floor and detaching myself from my bike I chased the Tw** and caught him, first thing he said to me was sorry I didn't see you, I took a photo of him and his car and went to the local police station, the copper asked if I had a witness, only the lady at the junction who asked if I was ok, but I didn't have her details, copper then said well its his word against yours, that's fine but it was reported.
Two days later I receive a phone call from the police to say that there was an independant witness and the driver had been charged. Driver went to court in November and pleaded not guilty, now I have to drive up to wick on Monday 20th Feb 2012 ready for court on Tuesday, I will update you on what the result is on Wednesday.

Duke

[thirdcrank]

Duke3376

Good to know you survived to tell the tale and also that your report was investigated.

One important thing to note is that afaik, in Scotland, the formal need for corroboration of evidence is greater than in England and Wales. (If irc sees this, he will be better able tan I am to go into detail.)

The main point as far as E&W are concerned is that the CPS was largely modelled on the Scottish Crown Office and Scots prosecutors - the Procurators Fiscal. The aim was to raise the standard of prosecutions which mainly means to insist on more evidence, which in collision cases tends to mean independent witnesses.

This is also why I think better use should be made of video. Your photos would probably have been invaluable (but not necessarily decisive) if the driver had denied being involved, but they don't strengthen any charge of bad driving.