Rear Admiral Mark Beverstock, 51, was catapulted through the air and fractured his shoulder as he tried to negotiate Vauxhall Cross, one of the capital’s most dangerous junctions. He was dragged to safety by another cyclist.
He reported the incident to the Met police but was “staggered” to be told a week later that it had closed the case as he had been unable to provide the van’s registration number.
And they got a typically acerbic response to this:
He had to admit himself to A&E at St Thomas’ hospital. He was angry when the police case was dropped. “I rang them up and said, ‘I’m sorry I didn’t provide the registration number, but as I was laying on the road after getting knocked unconscious the chances of getting it were pretty slim’.”
So, were TfL obstructive? Well, no.
A TfL spokesman said: “When the police and other law enforcement agencies request CCTV footage from TfL, we will always help where we can and share footage and data.
“We do not have any plans for TfL’s traffic monitoring cameras, used to keep London’s roads moving, to record footage on a continuous basis. However, CCTV footage from buses, at Tube stations and other locations on the transport network are recorded and provided to assist the police if required for investigating incidents on the network, including traffic collisions.”
So what have the Met got to say for themselves?
A Met spokesman said: “The Metropolitan Police Service is currently looking into this incident to ensure a full and proportionate investigation is undertaken in relation to this serious personal injury collision.”
Ah. Translation: “Shit! We’ve been rumbled!”
Oh dear, what happens if the Rear Admiral is shown to have been in the wrong?
ReplyDeleteAh translation; I will jump to conclusions with an anti-police post as I have no idea what's really going on with the investigation.
ReplyDeleteMelvin over to you,we are all ears for your pearls of wisdom.
Jaded
Then he'll have to take what's coming. It Ddoesn't change the point that there ought to be at least enough of an investigation to find any relevant CCTV footage or witnesses.
ReplyDeleteBunny
ReplyDeleteThen he gets on the wrong end of a civil claim for damage to the van, but if he was in the wrong why didn't the van driver stop? The van will be damaged and the driver is now also liable for driving away from the scene of an accident. If anything even if the rear admiral is in the wrong, that van driver if caught is in a worse position.
"We’ve been rumbled!”
ReplyDeleteA trifle unfair, Julia. You know plod are fully committed to preparing for the coming Doughnut Season...and this year is on course to be one of their best in living memory.
The thing is, you can be sure as eggs is eggs that if it had been a senior metropolitan Police Office run over on his bike there would be 50 officers investigating it right now
ReplyDeletePlod have moved on from cctv. They are waiting for someone who recorded it on their phone to post footage on farcebook with islamophobic comments.
ReplyDeleteMelv,
ReplyDeleteYou've been watching too many American TV cop shows. It's doughnuts over there and Greg's pasties over here. If you're going to insult someone, do it properly. Now get back under your bridge.
Penseivat
The very least the police could do is arrest every van driver in London and subject them to sensory deprvation until the culprit comes clean.
ReplyDelete"Oh dear, what happens if the Rear Admiral is shown to have been in the wrong?"
ReplyDeleteThen hopefully he'll get his comeuppance. Be nice to know one way or the other, though, wouldn't it?
" If anything even if the rear admiral is in the wrong, that van driver if caught is in a worse position."
Good point!
"...you can be sure as eggs is eggs that if it had been a senior metropolitan Police Office run over on his bike there would be 50 officers investigating it right now"
Agreed.
"The very least the police could do is arrest every van driver in London..."
Start with the white ones..? ;)