Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
AndyBSG
Posts: 382
Joined: 10 Jul 2013, 11:16am

Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by AndyBSG »

http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1421319105

All over the internet this morning.

Also interesting that someone has done a DVLA check and found that the vehicle doesn't have a valid MOT...
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by thirdcrank »

I don't know what happened there but afaik, the regs are unchanged. Here's what I believe to be the current relevant bit in full:

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—
(a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or.
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26..
(2) In paragraph (1)—
(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... on/24/made
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by thirdcrank »

Injured party traced - case CDP (complainant declines to prosecute.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30869791

BBC now putting "attacked" in quotes.
Valbrona
Posts: 2696
Joined: 7 Feb 2011, 4:49pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Valbrona »

In respect of the apparent assault, you would not expect Essex Police to involve themselves unless the victim reported the crime.

But surely the act of a driver of a motorised vehicle seemingly deliberately knock a cyclist off his bike is a more serious offence that they are duty bound to investigate if it is put under their noses in the form of video evidence, whether the victim comes forward or not.
I should coco.
Valbrona
Posts: 2696
Joined: 7 Feb 2011, 4:49pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Valbrona »

"A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "On December 8, 2014, police were made aware of a personal injury collision between a cyclist and a van".

"No allegation of crime was made and no further action was taken was taken by police".

Both from here: http://road.cc/content/news/140602-esse ... video-goes

The Met Police seem to say that there was a collision between van and cyclist.
I should coco.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by thirdcrank »

If we avoid any speculation about the way this was dealt with at the time, we seems to have a situation where apparently compelling video evidence has subsequently emerged - and has been widely published - which seems to record events which were more serious than the initial disposal suggested. It seems that the rider involved has not complained about the way the incident was initially dealt with and "does not want to be involved." In the absence of a complaint from that rider, I can't think of any formal mechanism to get this looked at again although it's obviously always possible that a senior officer responsible for the area where it happened might take it up.

The ready availability of video evidence is largely after my time so I'm among the don't knows. Perhaps we'll see.
User avatar
BSRU
Posts: 265
Joined: 7 Jul 2010, 9:53am

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by BSRU »

The driver's now been charged with a public order offence.
http://twitter.com/mpshavering/status/5 ... 8860553216

And investigations into traffic offences are ongoing:
http://twitter.com/mpshavering/status/5 ... 7731115008
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Mark1978 »

Yup. Let's hope they get him on that.

Image
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Vorpal »

“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Vorpal »

Commentary on this thread has been removed for legal reasons.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Mark1978 »

Vorpal wrote:Commentary on this thread has been removed for legal reasons.


What legal reasons are those Vorpal?
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Bonefishblues »

I must admit it did make me smile when I saw the suggestion yesterday - a thread like this could prejudice legal process? \

This has been discussed on dozens, if not hundreds of Forums in the UK & Internationally, so I do struggle to see how the removal of our comments could make any discernible difference?

ETA
Assuming, of course, that my understanding is correct?
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by reohn2 »

What I find surprising about this case is that the driver was only ''interviewed and subsequently charged with a public order offence'' after the video went 'viral'.
Are we to conclude that if the general public isn't fully aware of the crime there's no need to prosecute? :?
What has policing come to in this country?
Also who's decision should it be to charge offenders in such cases?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by Mark1978 »

reohn2 wrote:What I find surprising about this case is that the driver was only ''interviewed and subsequently charged with a public order offence'' after the video went 'viral'.
Are we to conclude that if the general public isn't fully aware of the crime there's no need to prosecute? :?
What has policing come to in this country?
Also who's decision should it be to charge offenders in such cases?


That's pretty common really that when there is publicity the police decide to take action. Whereas from reading here and elsewhere without that they really aren't bothered to the extent of telling you to just go away.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cyclist Assaulted By Taylor Landscaping Worker

Post by thirdcrank »

I'm not clear how the original incident came to be reported - possibly a third party who witnessed all or part of it.
In spite of some speculation earlier in the thread, it's not clear what caused the rider not to complain. It might have been a reluctance to become involved or a "nothing we can do about it" fob off. Or something in between. Intimidation is always a possibility whenever there's violence.
This leads to the headcam footage in that it will not have been viewed at the time of the original report.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the rider/cameraman genuinely did not want to complain to the police. Also supposing that the camera was visible, so it was obvious that there might be footage of the incident, then since this was in a public place, AFAIK the officer who attended would have had the power to seize the camera or at least the memory card, even against the wishes of the rider. Bearing in mind that that would probably have been the only way this footage would have come to light, bearing in mind that my understanding of what's already been posted is that it wasn't the rider involved who put this up on youtube. Seizing the evidence would be in accord with what I've posted about prosecutions being undertaken on behalf of us all. Do people think that the police should have seized this evidence from the outset, irrespective of the views of its owner?
Post Reply