A-hole in a van.

[Revolution]

I agree - report as assault.
I think I would be inclined to then pester the police to take action - make it their problem.
With this in mind, make sure you get details of the police person you talk to and any reference number relating to the incident.
Good luck and commiserations on what sounds like a horrible experience.

[661-Pete]

Merely touching a person, deliberately, without their consent, comprises Common Assault: that's what I've been told. So pushing you into the verge surely qualifies. From my experience, the Police will take such a case more seriously than they will for mere road rage or bad driving. And - even without a sexual element - Yewtree may well have made the cops much more alert to this sort of thing. Good luck!

[fretsaw]

yes,id say it was a assault;therefore pursue it with the police as such.
condolences,sure you were badly shaken up.

[Mark R]

Good on you for for reporting the deadbeat looser, hope you get some sort of result...

[kwackers]

Well the update is he was 'spoken to' and as you'd expect the story is somewhat different.

Firstly, I apparently cut across him and thumped his van.
So, how I did this on a single lane island when I was in primary is a tricky one. Nor does it explain why the impact is with my left elbow - I'd have had to veer across him from his right hand side and then somehow manage to thump his van!

He then apparently pulled up to see what the issue was and was forced to protect himself by pushing me out of the way after I threw my bike at him.
So the first thing is it would be difficult for me to throw the bike because it was still partially wedged between his van and the kerb plus I was sat on it. Then of course throwing a tourer with a laden pannier on it isn't easy. Finally the rear of my right calf was covered in oil and scrape marks off the chain - where did these come from? If I'd dismounted I wouldn't have wiped my calf on the chain, however they would be entirely consistent with being sat on a bike and being pushed off it. Finally, if he just pushed me where did the marks on my neck come from?

I don't think the PC believed him and his reassurance was that the guy got a good talking to about his behaviour and the need to be careful around cyclists. Apparently he admitted to seeing red and apologised (although given the above what would he be apologising for? I after all cut across him, hit his van and then attacked him with a bicycle! You'd think he'd have reported it. )

So that's that.
I reckon I'm going to go back to the sad state of affairs of having a camera as a permanent attachment - although I really don't want to wear a helmet...

[mjr]

Get a handlebar fixing for the camera then

[Jughead]

I got knocked off my bike a couple of weeks ago. Had it all in glorious HD on my cam. Taxi driver handed himself in. Police decided there was no criminal intent so no further action. Didnt even look at my video. What's the point.?

[AlanD]

Sorry about the encounter Kwackers.
Last week I had two 'Police reportable incidents' in quick succession. Think I'll ask for a season ticket next time
Riding into work on the Friday, White Transit Van Man overtakes at high speed on a blind bend with high hedges. Car driver coming the other way has to take avoiding action, up the verge, loses control of the car and spins it. Ends up with trashed front trim. Police arrive, I'm late for work and spend the following morning editing the juicy bits from two cameras together, to be burned onto CD's, two copies as requested, then drop into Police Station. All the while Mrs D is justifiably annoyed because it was a nice day. She agreed that it was potentially serious and looking at the recording added, "if they had collided, you would have been killed".
Then would you believe it, I cannot even get home without some idiot in a Range Rover pulling out from a side turning to my right as I am passing, then uses his car to force me against the kerb while he dishes out some verbal aggro. So that means some of the afternoon is spent doing yet more downloading/editing, followed by yet another visit to the Police Station! Phone call from very nice PC; he has been spoken to and given advice about his driving. Am trying to ignore the lesser incidents, but it seems to be getting worse. Is it me? No, it's all of us!

[Mark1978]

The police and courts need to start taking aggressive driving seriously otherwise not only will things not change they will get worse.

[thirdcrank]

If the officer who attends / person taking the initial call dismisses a report, then no amount of evidence is likely to alter that. In kwackers' incident, his report was apparently investigated but the officer was faced with conflicting accounts. That's when corroboration eg by independent witnesses or headcam footage would be invaluable.

This also highlights the importance of profpointy's post about this being an assault. Only the most serious collisions - KSI , which seems to be interpreted as fatal or likely to go that way - are regarded as a police priority. Put another way, if something isn't a priority, it's unlikely that it will be fully investigated. Violence is a priority. Admittedly, assaulting cyclists isn't up there with some other forms of violence but with sufficient evidence, it's harder to ignore and it can't be dismissed as not being a priority.

PS AFAIK, the formal requirement for the corroboration of evidence is greater in Scotland than it is in E&W.

[Bicycler]

Thirdcrank, how far can the police justify not taking any further actions on the grounds of something not being a priority? If (for example) I came in with cast-iron proof of a minor illegal activity could they legitimately say "yes that is illegal but not a priority so we don't care"?

[broadway]

Thirdcrank, how far can the police justify not taking any further actions on the grounds of something not being a priority? If (for example) I came in with cast-iron proof of a minor illegal activity could they legitimately say "yes that is illegal but not a priority so we don't care"?

So witnesses report me for riding along a pavement on a dual carriageway, should the Police investigate and take to court?

[thirdcrank]

Thirdcrank, how far can the police justify not taking any further actions on the grounds of something not being a priority? If (for example) I came in with cast-iron proof of a minor illegal activity could they legitimately say "yes that is illegal but not a priority so we don't care"?

First, police as individuals have considerable discretion over what they enforce. With regard to relatively minor matters, if they enforced everything they witnessed themselves, they'd never get far from the door of the police station, without ever starting on reports from the public. Beyond that, there are other factors, some of which are particularly relevant in the investigation of reports by members of the public. I mentioned the formal requirement for corroboration in Scotland; the establishment of CPS led to a much greater demand for corroboration in E&W, even when it's not a legal requirement and, more generally, more evidence and consequently, more paperwork in just about every type of case. The corroboration requirement has not been universal, of course, as recent trends in the investigation of so-called historic sexual offences have shown, but that in turn highlights the way so much police time is now devoted to gathering stacks of evidence in a relatively small number of high-profile cases.

As a topical example, I'd give the use of mobile phones while driving. There's plenty of it going on and even if it were to be accorded a high priority, it would be vastly more cost-effective for the police to deal only with those cases they witnessed themselves and could finalise on the spot, than by following up reports from members of the public, who might in any case lose interest if they thought they would have to give evidence.

Finally, I think it has to be said that there's an increasing amount of spin: eg the well-publicised crackdown. Then, what used to be called uniform patrol now seems to be termed "response and reassurance." So, a lot of the basic patrolling is now done by PCSO's. They were introduced to provide "public reassurance" ie, people in hi-viz uniform on the streets. It's not their fault that they receive little training in the criminal law. The decreasing numbers of police constables engaged on that type of duty are doing the response bit: dashing about from job to job, usually under pressure to move on to the next incident.

[BSRU]

I remember the one incident when police attended due to the driver getting aggressive while I was on the phone to the police.
The copper who arrived was completely uninterested, just wanted to get back to the station.
He also visited the driver at home and believed his side of the story even though it did not match the video evidence.
The copper didn't even bother talking to the witness that came out of their house after seeing the driving driving at me.
When the copper came to visit me to explain why he couldn't be bothered it was obvious from his crap excuses I had wasted my time.

[bigjim]

The decreasing numbers of police constables engaged on that type of duty are doing the response bit: dashing about from job to job, usually under pressure to move on to the next incident.

Thankyou. You have described my sons job perfectly. He is an experienced response officer. He says it never stops. While he is dealing with one urgent situation, the radio is screaming for him to attend another. Most of the work tends to be drink related domestics. The last thing he wants to do is make an arrest, as he is then stuck back at base for hours writing it up while the mayhem continues outside. The job has been cut and cut.
Most of the time he is single manned and of course at great risk. On the subject of mobile phones he says you cannot keep up with them. He does issue penalties when he sees it, but he is usually on the way to another urgent violent incident. Often he has to just tap on the window and rollick them as he moves on.
I think he would leave in an instant if he could get something else.