On 12/04/2020 09:54, Kelly wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

So a cyclist admits that he was not looking where he was going and was
not in proper control and as a result ran into a vehicle that had
stopped in front of him, that sounds very like careless riding at the least.

If you read the full text of the letter sent to the cyclist, John, by
the complaints investigator, Kevin Bennett, (printed at the end of the
report) you will see that this incident is more complicated than
initially indicated by the journalist's report.

The driver appeared to perform an 'abrupt' stop on the roundabout (he
has given, nor been asked to give, an explanation for this) and the
cyclist rode into the back of the drivers car. At which point the
driver moves off again and does not stop at the scene to exchange
details with the cyclist. The cyclist then reports the incident to the
police and it was eventually agreed that the cyclist not been injured
in the incident but it would be passed onto the correct department to
deal with.

Kevin Bennett, the investigator, then goes on to explain:
QUOTE: "...it was noted by the Case Officer that you had considered
the incident not to have been a road traffic collision, but you made
reference to it being an 'assault' and that the 'weapon used in the
assault was a motor vehicle'. You have also stated that the 'car
driver clearly aware of my presence & deliberately caused this
incident'. Therefore, having read your comments the Case Officer quite
rightly took the decision that this should not be recorded as a road
traffic collision, but as an assault, which is the first point where
the system has let you down, because from there on the report was sent
for crime recording, but was returned saying that it was not a crime
but a collision. ...both parties have been informed that the case has
been filed as no further action, the case is now officially closed and
cannot be re-opened, however this does not prevent you taking out a
private prosecution in a Civil Court where the burden of proof is set
at a lower level as they work on the balance of probabilities, rather
than beyond all reasonable doubt." ENDQUOTE

Both cyclist and driver look a bit culpable in this whole incident to
me. But if the cyclist is unhappy with the way he was dealt with, it
is up to him to decide whether it would be wise of him or not to take
out a private prosecution.



If you run into the back of someone it means you were travelling too
closely to be able to stop in time. Not looking where you are going is
a reason for this happening.

What may or may not have happened earlier is irrelevant.

A cyclist with his feet jammed onto pedals that are unsuitable for road
use has run into the back of a clearly visible object while the cyclist
was looking at his feet.

If the car had suddenly reversed into the cyclist then the collision
would likely be the car driver's fault, but from the cyclist's own words
the fault is by the cyclist.