Common Assault

[thirdcrank]

Let's look at the available evidence, remembering that we (or at least the prosecuting authorities) are not apportioning fault but looking for evidence of a criminal offence by the motorbike rider.

In the OP's own words:

It took a few seconds for the reality to sink in ...

That might be presented by the defence as

.. and for my mind to fill in the gaps in what I had witnessed.

That's not intended as a criticism of the OP, just a reminder that a victim's recollection may be incomplete.

The OP's evidence is corroborrated by the camera footage in terms of when and where, but there's not much shown of the rider's behaviour, other than a brief view of his raised arm. IMO, it wouldn't add much to a prosecution for assault, unless the suspect denied the time date etc.

The biggy, of course is that the OP was able to stop the car driver immediately behind and to obtain their details with a view to their being a witness. In a case like this, an independent witness with a front-row seat is the make or break. AFAIK, We know nothing about this part of the evidence (by coincidence, I've had a reminder today from Specsavers that they've not seen me for over three years )

Then, there's the record of what was said in the police interview of the defendant. This is summarised, second hand as a claim of self-defence but it shouldn't stop there, but rather it should be probed, especially if the independent witness's version does not support it. If there's to be a formal caution, the interview must have reached a voluntary admission.

Beyond that, it's important in assault cases to be wary of dwelling on what might have happened when it didn't. It's impossible to attempt an assault, since what might normally amount to an attempt eg an unsuccessful attempt to hit somebody amounts to the full offence. ie Although "assault" is popularly taken to mean the landing of the blow, that's legally the battery. Then, there's a range of charges largely based on the gravity of the injuries caused. Although the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 is overdue for reform, ss 42 and 47 were repealed and replaced by s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The point here is that relatively recently, Parliament made common assault a purely summary offence, without the option to take the case to the Crown Court where the max would be 5 years imprisonment if the circumstances were serious even though the assault itself could not be proved to have caused serious injury.

[PDQ Mobile]

Everybody's happy, right up to the point where a motorist tries to follow the motorcycle and the cyclist gets knocked off.

I simply don't accept that is the case.
Car drivers don't generally go through gaps that motorcycles pass through, they decide for themselves. Give them some credit for goodness sake.

I think you often ride generally too far out.
I think many of the problems you experience with aggressive drivers are at least in part to do with that.

Because that's how we handle bullies in this country - we give in to them?

Hardly!!
I am of the opinion that the OP cycles too far out. Simple.
It is my firm considered opinion. I think a viewing of his videos confirms that this is often the case.
And his continual problems seem to back that up.
The motorcyclist clearly thought that too!

And yes "primary plus" is made up as a quick way to try to explain what I mean.
To be honest I thought it pretty obvious!

[hjd10]

Everybody's happy, right up to the point where a motorist tries to follow the motorcycle and the cyclist gets knocked off.

I simply don't accept that is the case.
Car drivers don't generally go through gaps that motorcycles pass through, they decide for themselves. Give them some credit for goodness sake.

I think you often ride generally too far out.
I think many of the problems you experience with aggressive drivers are at least in part to do with that.

Because that's how we handle bullies in this country - we give in to them?

Hardly!!
I am of the opinion that the OP cycles too far out. Simple.
It is my firm considered opinion. I think a viewing of his videos confirms that this is often the case.
And his continual problems seem to back that up.
The motorcyclist clearly thought that too!

And yes "primary plus" is made up as a quick way to try to explain what I mean.
To be honest I thought it pretty obvious!

On my commute home from work there is a cyclist that rides in the middle of his lane and there is usually a queue of traffic behind him.
He doesn't moveover at all and I've witnessed cars beeping their horns and shouting at him. Now what constitutes being a pain in the backside and taking the lane?

[MikeF]

[
1) I make a point of frequently looking behind, even when I know what's behind me, just to let the drivers know I've seen them..................
On the other hand, the mirror is another thing that could be made mandatory without any evidence or any cost to the state. That's a win/win!

In my experience some drivers take a glance behind as a signal for them to squeeze by.
I've yet to find a mirror that's any good, so don't start proposing that.

[Cunobelin]

For a formal caution, the evidence has to be sufficient for a prosecution: it's an official disposal, not short cut to conclude a case.

...

Hi TC, I understand what you're saying, but if there's enough evidence for a prosecution and the offender has admitted it ... then if he went to court -
the sentencing guidelines say a minimum of 3 points on his licence and a fine.

Given that he would probably have received a caution (or a community resolution) for the assault only - then it seems to me that he's received nothing additional for the careless driving aspect.

Points on his licence and (say) 3 years of increased insurance premiums would be an annual reminder of the error of his ways.

--Jatinder

The rules on "spent" points are confusing. For most they now valid for three years for totting up, remain on the licence for 4 years, but most insurance companies tend to use 5 years and if not declared on the application, then they treat it as a "non declaration" and that hits your premiums even harder (In some serious case they remain for 11 years)

There have even been cases where the insurance company has invalidated the policy because of this

A two fold problem, because as your policy non-declaration means your policy was never valid it means you could be guilty of driving without insurance. Secondly it could leave you in a big financial hole when the claims are refused.

[bovlomov]

[
1) I make a point of frequently looking behind, even when I know what's behind me, just to let the drivers know I've seen them..................
On the other hand, the mirror is another thing that could be made mandatory without any evidence or any cost to the state. That's a win/win!

In my experience some drivers take a glance behind as a signal for them to squeeze by.
I've yet to find a mirror that's any good, so don't start proposing that.

That can happen, but the alternative (never looking behind) is probably more dangerous, especially if you have no mirror.
And my point is that they don't need to be any good to be made compulsory.