Hertfordshire Police apologise to cyclist

On 13/04/2020 12:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/2020 10:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

This is not rocket surgery.

Rocket surgery? There is a kind of greatness in your use of that term
with its subtle ability to call someone stupid twice in one euphemism.

That's very well put.
Whoosh!

--
Bod

On 13/04/2020 10:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 12/04/2020 10:35, Kelly wrote:

MrCheerful wrote:
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.

The general rule is undoubtedly that, if you are in a vehicle and run
into the back of someone else's vehicle, it will be your fault and you
will not be able to make a claim against anyone else. But what if the
driver in front behaved unreasonably?

Not looking where you are going is a reason for this happening.

What may or may not have happened earlier is irrelevant.

Not sure about that one, what about if you were looking to establish
someone else's unreasonable behaviour?

A vehicle may need to be brought to a halt for any number of reasons.
There could be a person prone on the ground, for instance. perhaps even
a cyclist.

This is one of the reasons why motor vehicles have brake lights. The
idea is that following traffic (including cyclists) is supposed to keep
an effective lookout for what is happening in front and to not only stay
a reasonable and safe distance behind from a vehicle being followed but
in any case a sufficient distance back so that the following vehicle may
be brought to a halt without colliding with the vehicle in front.

This is not rocket surgery.

Rocket surgery? There is a kind of greatness in your use of that term
with its subtle ability to call someone stupid twice in one euphemism.

I wish I could claim it as my own.

Alas, I saw it elsewhere. It's good, isn't it?

It may not be rocket surgery yet people get involved in running into
the back of other vehicles everyday, especially with so many impatient
tailgaters around.

They do. But it is a truth universally acknowledged that it's their own
fault when they do so. The rule is "drive (ride) so that you can stop
within the distance you can see to be clear".

And, as Simon has pointed out in this thread, some
unscrupulous people even go out of their way to 'engineer' such
collisions.

I have heard as much. Avoid it by driving / riding in such a manner as
to be able to stop within the distance which can be seen to be clear.

If you are so minded, it must often be relatively easy to
catch out someone unsuspecting and unwary following behind you.

Only if they are failing to drive (ride) so that they can stop within
the distance they can see to be clear.

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.

As a general principle, though, if you drive your vehicle into the
back of another one but believed the other driver had behaved
unreasonably, would you not cosider taking legal advice from a
personal injury lawyer such as:

https://morayclaims.co.uk/if-someone...s-their-fault/

Perhaps not the best firm to consult in the described circumstances.

Well I wasn't recommending them - I just causually picked one out at
random in this instance from a google search.

I'm sorry but should I drive my vehicle into the back of another one,
and if it was my firm belief that the other driver had behaved
unreasonably, I don't see anything wrong in consulting a solicitor
(especially one recommended by a family member, say) to take advice
from.

Of course.

But the rule is *still* "drive (ride) so that you can stop within the
distance you can see to be clear".

If you do that, you cannot hit the back of the vehicle in front unless
that other vehicle is reversed toward you.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 10:19:52 AM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On 12/04/2020 21:22, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On 12/04/2020 07:31, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 7:55:07 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:

https://road.cc/content/news/brake-c...stioned-272667

Nobody gives a ****. Get a life.

Why did you comment then?

This group is for entertaining the silly cyclists, the silly
cyclists who reply. It is fun taking the slash out of cyclists.



Pounder is a slime-emitting ocean-dweller that's remained unchanged
for 300 million years--and it shows. It has a skull (but no spine),
velvet smooth skin, and a terrifying pit of a mouth that's lined
with rows of razor-sharp teeth.

It is fun taking the slash out of silly cyclists.
Another **** take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ29fYDm9DM





Those video images revealed that Pounder is able to choke his would-be
predators with gill-clogging slime.
https://youtu.be/F8aVgSIDJjM


Prat. Typical low intelligence cycling prat.

Dr Keller to you.

On 13/04/2020 12:19, Bod wrote:
On 13/04/2020 12:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/2020 10:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

This is not rocket surgery.

Rocket surgery? There is a kind of greatness in your use of that term
with its subtle ability to call someone stupid twice in one euphemism.

That's very well put.

Whoosh!

Are you absolutely sure about that?

TMS320 wrote:

On 13/04/2020 10:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

This is not rocket surgery.

Rocket surgery? There is a kind of greatness in your use of that term
with its subtle ability to call someone stupid twice in one euphemism.

That's very well put.

Thank you - it's kind of you to say as much.

Bod wrote:

On 13/04/2020 12:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/04/2020 10:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

This is not rocket surgery.

Rocket surgery? There is a kind of greatness in your use of that term
with its subtle ability to call someone stupid twice in one euphemism.

That's very well put.
Whoosh!

I'm afraid I can't do sarcasm all that well, and it seems to forever
catch me out.

Even so, I quite like how language can be open to more than one
interpretation. And this actual newspaper headline is, I think, a good
example: "Prostitutes Appeal to Pope".

On 13/04/2020 21:19, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On 12/04/2020 21:22, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On 12/04/2020 07:31, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 7:55:07 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:

https://road.cc/content/news/brake-c...stioned-272667

Nobody gives a ****. Get a life.

Why did you comment then?

This group is for entertaining the silly cyclists, the silly
cyclists who reply. It is fun taking the slash out of cyclists.



Pounder is a slime-emitting ocean-dweller that's remained unchanged
for 300 million years--and it shows. It has a skull (but no spine),
velvet smooth skin, and a terrifying pit of a mouth that's lined
with rows of razor-sharp teeth.

It is fun taking the slash out of silly cyclists.
Another **** take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ29fYDm9DM





Those video images revealed that Pounder is able to choke his would-be
predators with gill-clogging slime.
https://youtu.be/F8aVgSIDJjM


Prat. Typical low intelligence cycling prat.


Thanks greatly for that EXCELLENT compliment coming from YOU. Especially
as it has been given by YOU.
Now please ejaculate to me throm YOU the further esteemed honour of
being the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel.
It really is a very great compliment to be called a prat by YOU.
Especially by YOU.
And I have no ****ing interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
****witted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

On 07:29 12 Apr 2020, MrCheerful said:

On 11/04/2020 19:54, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
He
the driver's account is given equal credence to what actually
happened."

Reflecting on the collision on the roundabout, John added: "The car
was well ahead and pulling away when I glanced down as I was having
trouble re-engaging my cleat and was caught out by the brake check.
Frankly it was totally unexpected.

"I'll know different in future, but in over 35 years of driving,
motorcycling and cycling as an adult I HAVE NEVER had that manoeuvre
performed on me before. It is incredibly dangerous and is considered
by most police forces in the UK and abroad as a serious moving
traffic offence."

https://road.cc/content/news/brake-c...t-should-have-
been-questioned-272667

Nobody gives a ****. Get a life.



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.

That sums it up well.

Pamela wrote:

On 07:29 12 Apr 2020, MrCheerful said:

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.

That sums it up well.

Where have you been? You are waking up a story that was put to bed
several days ago, and has been sleeping soundly ever since.

On 16:00 20 Apr 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 07:29 12 Apr 2020, MrCheerful said:

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.

That sums it up well.

Where have you been? You are waking up a story that was put to bed
several days ago, and has been sleeping soundly ever since.

I don't spend all my time on this group. Sorry about that. I have other
things to do in my life and visit here when I choose.