A senior Metropolitan Police inspector admitted officers were “clearly wrong” when confronting a cyclist who swore at them for blocking a London bus lane with their parked unmarked vehicle.
The footage which has been widely shared on social media shows two officers approach the rider, who is travelling with two young children, after he told the police to “get out the f****** way”.
As the cyclist laughs at the fact he did not realise it was a police vehicle the blue lights come on before one of the officers proceeds to scold the cyclist for apparently “committing public order offences” and swearing in front of his children.
Tell me you’re aNt1-cYCL1St without telling me you’re aNt1-cYCL1St @theJeremyVine @JoRigby_Balham @carlafrancome @London_Cycling @MikeyCycling @SafeCycleLDN @wandscycling @HF_Cycling @crisortunity pic.twitter.com/FV5FiKdVwj
— Bea Gator (@BeebsG) November 26, 2022
The officer driving adds: “It’s not all about you”, returning to the vehicle while the main officer involved warns that “the wrong type of people” might “ram” or “stab” the cyclist if they were on the receiving end of the shout.
“You’re swearing in the street with two small children that are yours, so you’re committing public order offences with your kids,” the main officer says. “How inconsiderate and stupid can you be? You want to put your kids lives at risk? There are people out there that if you swear at them, would come after you.
“Also swearing in the street is against the law, you just did it. It’s a public order offence, in a public place where there’s small children, you cannot swear.
The incident unfolded last Wednesday (23rd November) shortly before 8am, just south of Wandsworth Bridge, nearing the Wandsworth Roundabout on Bridgend Road.
Part 2 pic.twitter.com/7auwPqKf3h
— Bea Gator (@BeebsG) November 26, 2022
In the second part of the video the officer questioned whether a cyclist would have priority moving into another lane to pass a parked car.
“Sorry, I don’t like it when the rules are misinterpreted,” the cyclist replies. “I believe I have a right to pull out, indicate in front of another car. Anyway, it happened, I moved out and came past you.
“The only reason I had to do that manoeuvre is because you’re in the way. I was upset, I swore at you and do you know what? I’d probably do it again and hope I wasn’t going to get some arsehole from Wandsworth beat me up.
“Swearing in front of my children is my choice. Now you guys do a great job but please enforce the law on the correct rules.”
Following more than 250,000 thousand views and comments from many — including Jeremy Vine who called the officer’s argument “extraordinary” — inspector Tony Adkins of the Metropolitan Police’s Roads and Transport unit admitted the officer’s lecture was “clearly wrong”.
Thanks for alerting us to this. Inspector Tony Adkins has viewed this video – please see the comment below. pic.twitter.com/5Ocqz6igRB
— Roads&Transport MPS (@MPSRTPC) November 27, 2022
Vine said the policing looked like a “Comic Relief sketch” and “he [the officer] realised his assertion that the cyclist had committed a crime was wrong, so he changed it to an argument about possibly endangering himself by accidentally swearing at a criminal.”




















73 thoughts on “Met Police admit officers “clearly wrong” to scold cyclist who swore when unmarked vehicle blocked bus lane”
And 3,2,1…
And 3,2,1…
Yeah – just waiting for the
Addressing the root cause – why are we so commonly using bike infra as “extra road space” / “overspill”? Also – if they were really being undercover / busy on an operation, putting on the blues and then getting out for a discussion of a very minor offense would seem to be… not concentrating on their primary job, no? That’s probably what I’d be objecting to if I were their boss.
Anyway – just waiting for the false equivalence* / “bringing it on yourself” comments. I’ve also never quite understood the “traditional values” folks who held that swearing was really really bad but seemed to have a more relaxed approach to violence (“parents should physically discipline their children” / “he just needs a slap”).
* Increasing the danger to someone’s health and possibly life by blocking the bike lane not equivalent to fruity language. Really, really not – aside from them being utterly different actions anyway.
Aye. Pretty much all of this.
Aye. Pretty much all of this.
Is it just me or does anyone
Is it just me or does anyone else find that the policeman looks a nasty piece of work and doesn’t care about the danger he’s causing? Try shouting danger or attention instead to warn dangerous people.
Both wrong and both right.
Both wrong and both right.
I wouldn’t swear like that with the kids in the back, and the police shouldn’t have started talking about public order offences. But they’re right to warn him that he’s no idea who’s in the car and could be putting himself and his kids at risk of retribution just to make a point. London isn’t short of people who would feel the need to teach him some respect after that.
We often bemoan the fact that people dehumanise riders, well here’s an example of a rider dehumanising a driver because they’re in a car. I assume the rider wouldn’t react like that to a pedestrian standing in the bike lane waiting to cross the road.
Interesting. So on Saturday a
Interesting. So on Saturday a BMW driver close passed me – 3-4 inches close pass at about 30mph. The driver pulled into a car park nearby (traffic held him up so I was almost behind him when he did. Being in a bad mood already (non cycling related) I confronted him (no swearing).
Me: Why did you just close pass me?
Reply: You were in the middle of the road.
Me: No I wasn’t. So, why did you just close pass me?
Reply: You were weaving around in the road.
Me: No I wasn’t. You couldn’t pass if I was.
Reply: Effing and jeffing this and that.
Me: Don’t close pass me or anyone else.
Reply: More effing and jeffing.
Me: Turn round and ride off thinking he is not fit to be behind the wheel of any vehicle.
What he meant was I was riding a bike on the road and that wasn’t going to get in the way of his journey in any way shape or form.
The power of stereotypes /
The power of stereotypes / preconceived opinion. We see and hear what we want, not what’s there. And if not we’ll fill it in after the fact in an argument!
I think you mean it’s called
I think you mean it’s called lies. As well as revealing an attitude towards other road users that means the privilege of driving should be immediately removed.
srchar wrote:
Agree with all of this. No point being in the right when you’re in A&E eating through a straw.
Quote:
In an apparently illegally parked/stopped car forcing them to move out from “safety” into other traffic. Dehumanising normally means referring to people in a way that removes their humaness, so referring to cyclists as scum, infestation on the roads etc. He didn’t refer to them, just the location they happened to have illegally parked in.
The rest though is reasonably spot on.
srchar wrote:
Have you tried being a pedestrian in an unfamiliar part of London? I can absolutely assure you that it wouldn’t take long for the abuse to start if you stood in a cycle lane…
My biggest issue with the
My biggest issue with the issue with the cyclist’s behaviour* (and it’s something I struggle with myself) is that by losing his temper**, he’s reducing the quality of his riding – he’ll be safer on the roads if he takes a step back and is a little more zen.
Not safe from the nutters of Wandsworth, who’ll knife you for swearing at them – they don’t need a reason, and if they did, being on a bicycle is more than enough “reason” (even more so, if you are attempting to cycle safely).
It will help keep him safe in situations such as this, where he may feel he forced to change lanes due to the presence of a stationary vehicle in the bus lane. A stationary vehicle doesn’t force a cyclist to do anything dangerous. Getting angry in such a situation can lead you to making foolish decisions.
* I don’t expect more from the cyclist than the police officer. I’m pretty if there weren’t a bus lane or cycle lane here, he would have blocked the entirety of the pavement, rather than a single lane of traffic.
** I’ve not played the clip with the audio on, so it’s difficult to gauge how angered he is by the presence of the stationary car.
Why not park your unmarked
Why not park your unmarked police BMW in the car lane and leave the Bus lane free for buses and cycling only it is not a parking lane at all.
Just wondering what vehicle
Just wondering what vehicle they were waiting for to pull over. Or had they pulled it over, let it go on its way and was now……. what?
I’m afraid the justice system
I’m afraid the justice system is rather broken. The police, on some mission where they are waiting for some event that justifies them obstructing the highway have time to take their eye off the ball to berate a cyclist, yet every cyclist is a ball of spidey senses waiting for the next drivist with a chip on their shoulder, a Twitter argument more important than watching the road, a vital business phone call that requires their full attention and they want some support from the police to help reduce the presumption that dangerous driving has no real consequences.
This weekend I got the notice from the police that after a review, they were going to take no action against a motorist who threw a punch at me (from the driver’s seat) for me complaining about being skimmed past when walking in the road – the driver considered me a “Fucking stupid fucking idiot” for not doffing my cap and leaping onto a slippery verge so he wasn’t delayed by a couple of seconds. Surely a generic letter to the owner of the vehicle saying there had been a complaint against the driver of the vehicle and while the police were not going to take formal action, they would like to point out the relevant section of the HWC (basically treat a pedestrian as well as you would a horse) and to say that further reports of threatening behaviour could result in action being taken in future.
The reality is that the police haven’t got enough resources to establish a preventative baseline of enforcement, so it is frustrating to see the police fritter away their time on an unhelpful interaction.
Not sure how the’re going to
Not sure how the’re going to stop a vehicle if they’re both out of their car and astride a high horse.
There were two lanes for cars – they could have stopped in one of those, but that would slow cars down, which would be a bad thing – think of the bad language that that would attract. It’s altogether easier to endanger vulnerable road users and public transport.
Anyway, they need to go and swap their BMW for a Toyota Pious – altogether more suitable.
Everything that is wrong with
Everything that is wrong with the police exemplified in this article.
The policeman was perfectly correct to hold the cyclist to account for his disgraceful swearing with two young children in his care, and to warn him that his conduct increases the risk to himself, yet the donut-munching woke jobsworth duffer back at HQ hung him out to dry.
The cyclist, rather than posting the video for clicks and lols on Twitter, should reflect on their behaviour and – next time – be a better person.
I hope the policeman reads this comment and understands that not all cyclists are swearing, shrieking, child-abusing attention seekers. Many of us are perfectly normal people who also disagree with the disgusting wave of narcissism engulfing society.
Rakia wrote:
Perfectly normal people do not get themselves banned at least twice from a website for racism and libellous comments and continue to come back under new usernames time and again pretending to be someone else. Indeed, as the clinical definition of a narcissistic personality disorder includes “an inflated self-image and addiction to fantasy, lack of empathy for others and a delusional belief that the subject is superior to the rest of his social and professional peers” you would appear to be disagreeing with yourself, which of course explains a lot.
I’m not sure about Mr Rampa’s
I’m not sure about Mr Rampa’s credibility these days but I still think Mrs Fifi Greywhiskers is a great name for a cat. We don’t have cats. We have dogs. But I might get a cat one day. And I wouldn’t call it Mrs Fifi Greywhiskers. Oh no. I’d call it Sooty. Especially if it was black. Or grey
Why not call your dog Sooty?
Why not call your dog Sooty? Seems like a perfect name for a black-coated dog, and avoids the racial connotations of previously loved dog names.
Now that’s a way to spend
Now that’s a way to spend your days! Might make a good Christmas gift for the right person too.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Lama-Mrs-Fifi-Greywhiskers-P-S-C/dp/B01F9G1JP4
Thanks for the link. Well, at
Thanks for the link. Well, at the Tower of Babel mankind was deprived of telepathic communication due to his treachery towards animals. Apparently. That seems a shame
perce wrote:
Our rescue black cat is called Sort. He came to us with that name – apparently it’s the Danish word for ‘black’.
Steve K wrote:
Our rescue dog is black. She’s called Lottie. I don’t think it’s anything to do with black, we just liked the name and it seemed to suit her.
I think we’ll get a rescue
I think we’ll get a rescue dog next time. I don’t think I could go through the puppy stage again – all the training, early mornings etc. Too old for that
To quote “Yeah, why catch
To quote “Yeah, why catch criminals in real life and risk offending cyclists?”
Did they take the time off from the capturing of real criminals to do the really really very very important job of lecturing a father on how to bring up his kids? You complain about police policing Twitter but are perfectly happy for them to do it in real life?
You fucking idiot. Anyway, C U Next Tuesday?
Rakia wrote:
Do you think the police should be spending their time telling people off for swearing, under the misapprehension that it’s a public order offence? Or would you prefer if they spent their time investigating actual crimes?
Is it just me, or isn’t
Is it just me, or isn’t parking in/blocking a bus lane also “inconsiderate and stupid”?
Yeah, why catch criminals in
Yeah, why catch criminals in real life and risk offending cyclists?
After all, policeman could be sat in a comfy chair back at HQ with a cup of tea and a donut, policing opinions on Twitter.
As a very slight legal
As a very slight legal technicality, where an incident is caused by /instigated as a result of the actions of a police officer, and the only public affected are minor dependents of the person involved in the incident and the police, there is no public order offence. Public order offences can only happen when a member of the public is affected. Minors who are dependent of the person who, in this case, is swearing, are not covered by the legislation, and police are not members of the public. Police all to often resort to using public order legislation, and all to often are wrong in doing so. Makes it easy to get any cautions overturned and to force formal apologies from the forces
Whenever you are stopped by a police officer, no matter what the circumstances, demand that they first provide you with their name, warrant number, and home station. They are legally required to provide this information
I didn’t realise it was part
I didn’t realise it was part of the police’s job to give people moral lectures.
Do they go around advising people not to commit adultery ? Or not to blaspheme ?
Kultcha wars innit? They
Kultcha wars innit? They should be going round helping old ladies across the road and
slamming people’s genitals in draws to get confessionsapprehending criminals but instead they’re too busy nannying people, harassing law-abiding vehicle operators (is this right?) and being the woke police on the internet.Moral police – it’s exactly the same as in Iran, or something…
hirsute wrote:
You clearly don’t watch enough prime time TV on Channel 5 😉
Can’t remember the last time
Can’t remember the last time I watched C5 !
Why park there anyway?
Why park there anyway?
As Rendel has shown on many occasions, police park where it is dangerous for no operational reason at all.
It seems like a long time ago
It seems like a long time ago (30 years) I was in my 20s and took all my A/L from work and went to USA on a working/holiday. One subject that I will never forget was a piece advice that the people I was living with gave Me “when I was out and about, be carefull who you get into aargument/disagreement with” as it could land Me in a lot of trouble. This stuck with Me and I was glad to call the Uk home. now this home is just as messed up and poice have seeming given up in some parts of the country. When whoever you are – sex/ethnicity/cyclist (the list endless) you now have to take care, so as not to become a victim of the thugs and narcissist, that is a very sad day indeed.
60kg lean keen climbing
This has always been the case. Never get into an unncessary argument when out and about (regardless of your situation), as you don’t know who you are dealing with. A tale as old as time.
Nothing to do with your race, gender, or anything else – the person you’re dealing with might be really thick, might have mental problems, might just be at the end of their tether.
That’s why these goady cash-for-clicks van Twerp videos are so toxic – they have the power to wind up the kind of people who might make it their business to teach cyclists a lesson.
The police admit that they
The police admit that they are wrong. Halle-fucking-lujah!
Swearing is of course not big and not clever.
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
I was sent this at the
I was sent this at the weekend. I don’t know if it’s new. Just thought I’d share. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1735213976864062?s=yWDuG2&fs=e
EDIT: Oops meant to put this on the blog. My mistake.
1312
1312
Did you mean to post your PIN
Did you mean to post your PIN ?
It’s the typing clock, but it
It’s the typing clock, but it’s running a bit slow.
Can’t tell if the replies to
Can’t tell if the replies to this are meant to be ironic, but ACAB indeed.
(At risk of condescending, A=1, C=3, A=1 and B=2)
Nope, I had no idea what they
Nope, I had no idea what they meant nor what acab is until you explained it
Always Carry A Bible?!
Always Carry A Bible?!
https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk
https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/crime_news/ITS_OK_TO_SWEAR_AT_THE_POLICE_%E2%80%93_ISN%E2%80%99T_IT__(18_January_2012).html
“if a prosecution is to be successful from a technical point then there needs to be evidence of harassment alarm or distress”
Not really convinced the officers were distressed, in fact they said they arrest the type of people who will assault you for swearing.
Couldn’t get the link to work
Couldn’t get the link to work but yes its Section 5 of the Public Order Act which covers Harassment, Alarm or Distress
The CPS Charging guidelines are further clarified “With effect from 1 February 2014, section 5 no longer includes words, behaviour, or displays which are simply “insulting””. I think there may be a failure in updating this guidance to all staff.
It goes on to say “There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum (1989) Cr. App R 261 )”
I’ve editted the link –
I’ve editted the link – should be ok now.
Thanks. Although I note that
Thanks. Although I note that this is from 2012 and CPS guidelines seem to change in 2014 so It’s not certain that this would even reach court today.
Also interesting is:
Also interesting is:
It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
……..
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.
Ergo, I suggest that as the officers’ conduct put him in harm’s way, his reaction is reasonable and as the officers were in a car they were unlikely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress – on the contrary, they appear to be pleased to have something to do. QED.
Similarly – those close passes which are ignored because of the language should go back to the front of the queue
The public order offence
The public order offence thing seems to be used quite a lot as a ‘catch-all’ when there’s nothing else the police officer can get someone on, or if they just want to make a point. I’ve even seen them use it like that on PoliceTrafficInterceptorMotorwayCops, in front of a tv camera crew…
brooksby wrote:
Is that the same as the old “Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace” offence? There were a couple of coppers on my rugby team twenty years back who used to say whatever you were doing, if they wanted to nick you they could always use that.
And that’s despite a
And that’s despite a precedent being set that swearing with only the police around ISNT likely to cause alarm… and so isn’t a POO.
Doesn’t anybody think that
Doesn’t anybody think that that policeman looks nastier than the whole of Wandsworth ?
Cool cyclist wrote:
When having a chat with that officer, they should have a look at his WhatsApp. I’d put good money on it being very enlightening.
What not even The BOLAS!
What not even The BOLAS!
While the policeman’s lecture
While the policeman’s lecture was inappropriate, the cyclist’s misinterpretation of the changes to the HC were extremely alarming. Just because the cycle lane is blocked that doesn’t give you right of way, priority actually, over vehicles in the lane you have to pull into. You still have to observe, indicate, and pull out when it’s safe, not just indicate and pull out expecting other road users to cede priority.
Erm, if that is what the
Erm, if that is what the cyclist states, you are correct. However it wasn’t his actions in the video. He indicated his intentions a good seven or so seconds before it occurred, and glanced backwards at the rear car several times, including a full head turn, (hence the car appearing in the camera periphery), to ensure it was safe and the rear car was not coming past.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
That is what he says. He claims that he has right of way to indicate and pull out if the cycle lane is blocked and that drivers then have to give way. He’s seriously misunderstood the new HC rules.
An interpretation of what you
An interpretation of what you’ve written is if he signals and has pulled out then traffic is obliged to give way as he’s established in the lane – but you rightly suggest, as we often experience on the motorway with lorries emerging when you are at V2, a signal in itself gives no priority to change lanes.
Stupid thing to say then. And
Stupid thing to say then. And didn’t seem backed up by the actions he actually did do which seemed ok.
In the heat of the moment,
In the heat of the moment, the police offers should not expect any member of the public to have an exact and encyclopedic knowledge of the law.
But in context, this wasn’t the time nor the place to educate and inform. Certainly no regard to safety by anyone involved holding a discussion in the manner it occurred.
And they weren’t on point with regards section 5.
Personally, I would feel intimidated and isolated from protection by the law if I was treated similarly.
In fact, had the officers said that they felt harassed, alarmed or distressed, this would have been appropriate.
However, I’m wondering what their priority was at the moment of operation? Their guidelines advise them not to compromise an operation unless a significant crime is in progress or there is a threat to life. They flashed the blues, revealing their presence and got distracted too easily. What triggered them to get out and blow their cover? Where is their restraint?
As no stated crime had been committed, the officers potentially exceeded their powers of stop and search by stopping the cyclist.
If this happens to me, I ask the officer why they have stopped me. If there is no clear reason to do so I inform the officer politely that I’m happy to help them but wish to continue the discussion at the nearest police station, if they wish to follow me there.
It’s just necessary that YOU have to diffuse the situation.
The contradiction of an
The contradiction of an important operation whilst simultaneously stopping a cyclist for something unimportant was raised in the twitter thread. I never got as far as finding if that was answered.
I also wondered if I would have stopped. I mean the officers can’t be stopping me, they must be after the person the op is for surely ?
Reminds me of a chap from university who was followed for about a mile by police. When he got to his destination, they caught up with him asking him why he was cycling so fast away from them when they wanted him to stop.
“That’s my normal speed”
hirsute wrote:
The way you say that, it’s almost like you don’t think an operation to embarass yourself by pulling over sweary cyclists isn’t important.
police offers should not
police offers should not expect any member of the public to have an exact and encyclopedic knowledge of the law
Very amusing- in Lancashire, the police can’t even work out how Advanced Stop Lines work, despite it being a non-arduous task to read a couple of paragraphs of the HC. It’s also the law that vehicles on the road must posses a valid MOT certificate- not in Lancashire they don’t! The modern trend here is to disregard this optional MOT from the outset
wtjs wrote:
Well that makes sense – why not trust the manufacturer to deliver a working vehicle in legal condition…?
Well that makes sense – why
Well that makes sense – why not trust the manufacturer to deliver a working vehicle in legal condition…?
Shameful. Entitled cyclist
Shameful. Entitled cyclist who felt it perfectly acceptable to swear in front of his children at just any member of the public (they happened to be police officers) who happened to be legitimately stopped in the bus lane. Police behaviour was reasonable and measured in all circumstances.
Anordinarycyclist wrote:
Today I learned that wasting time to misinform the public about UK law is “reasonable and measured”. It could be worse I guess; our taxes could be spent on the police doing worse things, like raping and murdering perfectly innocent people (e.g. Sarah Everard) or swapping pictures of corpses (Henry and Smallman). I guess the behaviour of these idiots is “reasonable and measured” by comparison; it probably wasn’t even the worst thing they did that shift!
Anordinarycyclist wrote:
Police officers are not just any member of the public as far as British law is concerned.
How could an unmarked vehicle with no working hazard lights be considered legitimately stopped?
The police behaviour was so reasonable and measured that their boss is having a word with them.
From the sheer stupidity of your post, are you sure you’re not a returning user that’s just been banned?
Welcome back, Nige.
Welcome back, Nige.
Perish the thought that a
Perish the thought that a cyclist would feel that a mandatory lane should not be used by motorised vehicles for parking.
At the point of inconvenience, it was not known they were police. Good that there very important op had to be interrupted to state incorrect legal claims for a trivial interaction.