Alleged "Bike Rage" in Cambridge

[memopix]

This week's CTC newsletter repeats a story which has been inflated by local and national press: "In Cambridge though, the police are handing out fines to tackle cyclists with road rage! Let’s hope they also fine drivers too."

I have exchanged messages with the Police Constabulary in Cambridgeshire through their online complaints form. They replied that the damage was on the car's rear passenger door (probably a blind spot for the driver), but apparently the cyclist and his bike were fit to turn and cycle off. The claim that a cyclist rammed the car deliberately is based on the motorists statement only. The police is asking for witnesses, as currently there are no independent witnesses for the alleged act of road rage and there is no proof that the car was stationary at the time of the alleged impact. There does not even seem to be a witness for the existence of the cyclist. It is sad that the police and press divulge a story about "bike rage" where all they know is that a car's rear passenger door had scratches and the driver claims that a cyclist had rammed his bike into car.

Regards from Cambridge

Klaas Brümann

P.S. The location of the alleged incident of "bike rage". The car was coming out of Garlic Row (the street with the no-entry signs), turning left into Newmarket Road (a mayor artery with a separate bus & cycle lane.

[memopix]

I would like to add that the Cambridge Evening News quoted a Police Spokeswoman stating: "A cyclist had deliberately rammed his bike into her car causing damage. She looked in her mirror and saw the cyclist speed off back along Garlic Row. He was angry because he had to stop and cycle around her car?" Again, this incriminating Police statement is based on a party's (the driver) statement and so far not supported by any witnesses.

[meic]

It is a bit like suspects hitting the arresting officer's fist with their faces, isnt it?

Now that is what I call bravery, attacking a 1,000kg car with a 15kg bike. I suppose the rider would have thought it too cowardly to use his boots or fists as that would be too easy.
Much better to use his £200 Ultegra STIs or carbon forks.

In Amsterdam I had a cyclist ram into the back of my car at a traffic light and then ride off, leaving a little dent in the boot. I didnt realise it was a full scale attack at the time.
Lucky to have got out alive wasnt I?

[2Tubs]

Let’s assume the cyclist did this on purpose. Let's assume he lashed out at a car.

Now this is all assumption, there is about as much reliability in this as the drivers statement, but I think the big question the police appear to have failed to ask is "Why?"

Why would this poor victim find herself on the receiving end of such a random and violent attack?

And then I think about my cycle home last night. The bit I'm thinking about is when I was left hooked by an idiot who thought I was a target and not an entity that their car bonnet should avoid contact with.

And that made me a little bit angry. Almost angry enough to want to kick the side of their car in.

That seems a fair exchange to me. Take a chance with my life, I get to take a chance with your no claims bonus. If the police won't protect us from idiots, perhaps the threat of a lighter wallet might.

In other words, I think that at the very least, the only witness isn't being totally upfront with the police about the entire incident.

Gazza

[meic]

It is perfectly possible that the driver had done nothing legally wrong, maybee she had annoyed the cyclist by stopping in his way at a redlight which he wanted to jump.
Or that his knowledge of road law and highway code was as inacurate as is normal for the general public. That the motorist had broken some immaginary rule the rider had seen on Top Gear.

I know your scenario is much more likely but mine is possible and the cyclist DID do a runner!

[thirdcrank]

Two things strike me. It's often very difficult to prepare a press release which is truly impartial (and even, so people may still get upset e.g. 'was in collision with' because it doesn't apportion blame according to their own views) and which contains some element of press interest which will get it published. The main thing is to attract the attention of witnesses, without putting ideas in their head.

The second, is the way that these tuppenny ha'penny 'initiatives' have replaced actually doing anything. In many parts of the country there is now very little visible police presence (in spite of the attempts to make what there is more obvious by even dressing chief officers in high viz togs ) which would deter and routinely deal with so-called anti-social behaviour. Some junior supervisor arranges a bit of a purge, blitz or whatever you like to call it, gets a bit of local publicity, the actual enforcement is 'never mind the quality feel the width' and then it's back to normal after a few days.

[meic]

Every day cyclists are subjected to abuse, careless driving and dangerous driving incidents.
Road users commit crimes like RLJing, speeding, mobile phone while driving, pavement-driving-riding-parking with little fear of punishment.
Going to the Police seldom leads to any action against individuals involved.

It is absolutely amazing that "Bike Rage" is not a lot more common. When "law and order" fails the Vigilantes will rise.

[sirmy]

Or it could be that she bashed her door somewhere and wants to make a claim on the fund for claims against uninsured drivers. Strange how it's her words against that of a cyclist no one else saw and the police appear to believe her, unlike the many posts on this site where they put it down as on persons word against another.

And how did he manage to hit the nearside of the car - he'd have ridden the wrong way down the Newmarket Road before turning rightinto Garlic Road - surely anyone doing this would be in the pavement?

[meic]

That is not fair to the Police. They do try and find the other party and get their side of the story before dismissing it in that way.

It is amazing how lightly they take making false statements to the Police though.
I had an incident with a motorist on a mobile and he denied it. Police say CPS arent bothered enough to research phone records for a driving case. However at least one of us must have made a false statement to the Police, doesnt that matter either?

[memopix]

We can all speculate what may have happened. However, a police spokeswoman should not state to the press: "A cyclist had deliberately rammed his bike into her car causing damage. ... He was angry because he had to stop and cycle around her car?" if this is based on the accusers statement only with no witnesses to support it. From there the press builds a case of road rage by cyclists and everyone is up in arms...

[memopix]

And how did he manage to hit the nearside of the car - he'd have ridden the wrong way down the Newmarket Road before turning into Garlic Road - surely anyone doing this would be in the pavement?

The Newmarket Road pavement is shared use. Garlic Row is a false no entry (free fro cyclists). So the cyclist could have come from anywhere, as the motorist stated she had not seen him... I have demanded clarification about this from the police twice, who excused themselves citing that this was an "ongoing investigation".

If a cyclist is hit by a motorist in such circumstances, why would the cyclist wait for the police if still fit to cycle off. The cyclist only risks to be made responsible for the scratches on the car, at least that is what I learnt from this incident.

[Wildduck]

Without independant witnesses, isn't this a case of slander/libel by the police spokeperson?

[thirdcrank]

Without independant witnesses, isn't this a case of slander/libel by the police spokeperson?

I think that defamation in its different forms only applies to publication of material which would affect the reputation of an identifiable person. (Identifiable in the sense of knowing who was being talked about, rather than the likelihood that inquiries might eventually trace them.) And normally the only person who can take action is the person who is being defamed, which could be difficult if they were hoping to remain unidentified. I suppose they could do a Polanski and conduct the proceedings from France via video link.

[7_lives_left]

I don't know what to make of this. Without independent witness it is difficult to be sure what happened. It is quite possible that someone with too much testosterone and to little /manners/road sense/ rammed into the drivers car then road off in a huff. It is also possible that someone accidentally collided with the car, picked themselves up, seen that there was not much damaged, then scarpered before they got the blame. Not very responsible but it happens.

However...

A few years back I was commuting along my regular route to work. There is a minor road that has traffic lights and a queue stationary traffic where it joins a mjor road. I undertook the line of traffic down the left hand side, pulled up behind the car at the head of the queue, then waited for the lights to change before turning left on to the main road. A short while later as I was cycling down the main road, there was a bit of a commotion behind me. A driver is repeatedly sounding their horn. I'm not concerned, nothing to do with me. Several more cars overtake me and the commotion gets a bit nearer. Then a car pulls along side with the passenger window wound down and a woman, possibly a mum doing the school run, starts a one way conversion with me saying that I am an "arrogant cyclist", that I hit her car and that I am being reckless .

Rather than try to answer back, I slowed down, but the car kept going.

I must have hit her car while I was filtering past the queue of traffic at the lights but I honestly didn't notice and I would have stopped there and then if I had. I think I must have had something bulky like my fleece in the pannier on the right hand side of the bike and the pannier brushed against the bodywork of the car.

If you interfere in anyway with someone's car, deliberately, accidentally, or even unknowingly, they react very badly.

[Cunobelin]

Slightly OT, but I never send any evidence as a first complaint as these lies work well against drivers.In one example, was cut up by a van belonging to a local company, so complained.

The reply was that I was unlit, "all over the road" and that it was only the driver's swift reaction that had evented an accident when i weaved in front of him.

Replied that they had been lied to and enclosed the helmet cam showing my lights illuminating street sighns, a solid steady progress and the bad overtake at a pedestrian island.

The second reply was an abject apology for the driving , and an assurance that the driver's lack of integrity had resulted in a formal written warning.

Many companies take the lies more seriously than the driving.