Hertfordshire Police apologise to cyclist

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 10:35:16 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

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/

The so called "cash for crash" fiddles consist of a driver going in front of the victim and braking hard, causing the victim to crash into the car in front.

QUOTE:
An Induced Accident is where a fraudster will deliberately slam on the brakes of their car to ensure the car behind crashes into them.

https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/car-...crash-for-cash

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 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/


Vehicles may stop for reasons that the vehicle behind cannot see. Which
is why you always watch where you are going, always use a vehicle which
is in good mechanical condition, and always have enough clear space to
allow you to take the necessary actions to avoid collision, such as
braking or steering around the obstruction.

In the case mentioned the cyclist claims that there was some sort of
conflict before he crashed into the back of the car, so surely any sane
person would have stayed well away from the vehicle, perhaps even
stopping and taking a breather to calm down (this is the advice given in
the Highway Code rule 147)

MrCheerful 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 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/


Vehicles may stop for reasons that the vehicle behind cannot see. Which
is why you always watch where you are going, always use a vehicle which
is in good mechanical condition, and always have enough clear space to
allow you to take the necessary actions to avoid collision, such as
braking or steering around the obstruction.

In the case mentioned the cyclist claims that there was some sort of
conflict before he crashed into the back of the car, so surely any sane
person would have stayed well away from the vehicle, perhaps even
stopping and taking a breather to calm down (this is the advice given in
the Highway Code rule 147)

All that is true, and presumable was all taken into consideration when
the police decided to take no further action in this case.

Nevertheless, I think that neither of the parties involved in this
incident come out of it as shinning good examples to the rest of us.

On 12/04/2020 15:26, Kelly wrote:
MrCheerful 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 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/


Vehicles may stop for reasons that the vehicle behind cannot see. Which
is why you always watch where you are going, always use a vehicle which
is in good mechanical condition, and always have enough clear space to
allow you to take the necessary actions to avoid collision, such as
braking or steering around the obstruction.

In the case mentioned the cyclist claims that there was some sort of
conflict before he crashed into the back of the car, so surely any sane
person would have stayed well away from the vehicle, perhaps even
stopping and taking a breather to calm down (this is the advice given in
the Highway Code rule 147)

All that is true, and presumable was all taken into consideration when
the police decided to take no further action in this case.

Nevertheless, I think that neither of the parties involved in this
incident come out of it as shinning good examples to the rest of us.


Absolutely true (if the one sided account is true)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.


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. And, as Simon has pointed out in this thread, some
unscrupulous people even go out of their way to 'engineer' such
collisions. If you are so minded, it must often be relatively easy to
catch out someone unsuspecting and unwary following behind you.

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.

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 10:47:42 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

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.

Indeed. It could be one of these scams.

The so called "cash for crash" fiddles consist of a driver going in front of the victim and braking hard, causing the victim to crash into the car in front.

QUOTE:
An Induced Accident is where a fraudster will deliberately slam on the brakes of their car to ensure the car behind crashes into them.

https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/car-...crash-for-cash

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.