[the little onion]

So here’s an odd one. Just posting it here for any advice, though as a CyclingUK member, I’ll also contact them to hear their view.

 

I was close passed in a really bad way a while back – basically, nearly squeezed between a barrier and a badly driven car. During the process, I “dropped the f-bomb” four times. I submitted the footage to the police, including an apologetic note for my language in the footage. The police are taking it further with the driver, apparently, but the driver has now complained that I was using foul and abusive language, and thus a public order offence. I’m now going to be interviewed under caution for a public order offence!

 

I’ve sent some footage to the police before which has included some fruity language, but never had anything like this before. Frankly, the whole thing is embarrasing that this has been taken this far. Surely there is no public interest in pursuing someone who lets their language standards dropped when narrowly escaping a serious road incident?

 

Any thoughts or advice welcome.

Topic

[Bungle_52]

I’ll start by pointing out

I’ll start by pointing out that Daniel Cadden was initially found guilty and this underlines the potential problem you may have with the magistrate. They may share the police view that it’s down to the cyclist to keep out of the way and not slow down any drivers who are obviously more important as they pay road tax and have business to attend to as opposed to a cyclist out for a joy ride. Add to this that if a motorist does not give you enough room and you can avoid a collision then it is down to you to take the necessary action and the driver must be allowed to get away with it.

It’s not just drivers who think this. Read the comments on the following NMOTDs I’ve submitted. Apparently it was my fault for not anticipating the drivers’ failures to follow the highway code and not acting soon enough to avoid a collision although I somehow managed to on each occasion.

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-520-cyclist-hit-coming-under-bridge-280003

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-902-i-cant-believe-i-wasnt-hit-308071

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-913-309609

On a more positive note it’s good to hear that CUK are being useful.

Any way, good luck and I hope it all goes well.

[the little onion]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Is the police officer who compiled this report actually the person who was involved in the incident? It’s hard to see how they could be any more ridiculously biased! 

I don’t know – I’m trying to find out. Let’s just say that the spelling and grammar are consistent! It’s like the spelling of “definately” in Line of Duty….

I WILL be discussing this and publicising this – either in the magistrates court or via my MP and PCC. 

[the little onion]

Hirsute wrote:

Stunned that they could be so stupid.

This is victim blaming of a high degree.

They may as well have written “if the reporting person were not so fat, then the pass would not be as close”.

Or – if her skirt was longer, she wouldn’t have been so easy to rape.

[the little onion]

So, as I mentioned below, I

So, as I mentioned below, I have the evidence the police intend to use. This includes an example of my ‘aggressive’ and bad cycling. I quote this verbatim, simply because I can’t believe that the police would actually put down something that is so clearly, insanely, incorrect in terms of basic cycling technique, the highway code, and legal precedent via case law (specifically, R. v Daniel Cadden, if you want the reference).

This is the exact full and unabridged text, including grammatical errors

“This is a report of a close pass, the reporting persons camera is mounted central on his handle bars which would be over the wheel, the reporting person is then cycling on the limit of the cycle lane instead of being in it which shows he is not being very considerate to other road users. The suspect vehicle passes and if the reporting person was in the cycle lane correctly this would not be as close. The suspect vehicle then indicates to turn left and it is clear and obvious but the reporting person does not slow and continues driving towards the suspects vehicle before then being verbally abusive. The reporting person could have avoided the whole situation therefore NFA”

I mean, I got close passed when I was in a cycle lane, then immediately left hooked, and my ‘verbal abuse’ is me shouting “aaaargh, idiot” in sheer panic. 

The fact that the police think that this shows I am inconsiderate, and the cause and not the victim of the close pass, and that they are prepared to put it in writing, as evidence, in court, is simply insane. If this gets to court, I look forwards IMMENSELY to seeing the police officer’s face when this evidence is discussed.

They are f******g prejudiced, incompetent, abusive, b******s. 

I have submitted a formal complaint, and contacted my MP, and Police and Crime Commissioner. I’m going nuclear on this one. Even if this doesn’t get to court, this is totally unacceptable.

 

EDIT: There is another one, which says “From the footage the RP appears to cycle out towards the centre of the lane as the vehicle passes”. I then swear. This one was No Further Actioned.  What actually happened was that the vehicle passed so close, and so fast, that the turbulence dragged me into middle of the road, and I swear in panic.

[the little onion]

brooksby wrote:

One – you MUST get CUK involved in this!  That narrative of the incident is (more than) a bit rubbish.

 

Two – if the motorist was too close to you when you were at the edge of the cycle lane, I don’t think that they’d be a safe distance if you had moved a foot or so to your left so as to be in the middle of the cycle lane…

I have been discussing this with Cycling UK. Don’t worry. Like I said, they can’t support every case financially, and you will read about other cases in due course, but I do feel supported by them in other ways.

 

[brooksby]

the little onion wrote:

So, as I mentioned below, I have the evidence the police intend to use. This includes an example of my ‘aggressive’ and bad cycling. I quote this verbatim, simply because I can’t believe that the police would actually put down something that is so clearly, insanely, incorrect in terms of basic cycling technique, the highway code, and legal precedent via case law (specifically, R. v Daniel Cadden, if you want the reference).

This is the exact full and unabridged text, including grammatical errors

“This is a report of a close pass, the reporting persons camera is mounted central on his handle bars which would be over the wheel, the reporting person is then cycling on the limit of the cycle lane instead of being in it which shows he is not being very considerate to other road users. The suspect vehicle passes and if the reporting person was in the cycle lane correctly this would not be as close. The suspect vehicle then indicates to turn left and it is clear and obvious but the reporting person does not slow and continues driving towards the suspects vehicle before then being verbally abusive. The reporting person could have avoided the whole situation therefore NFA”

I mean, I got close passed when I was in a cycle lane, then immediately left hooked, and my ‘verbal abuse’ is me shouting “aaaargh, idiot” in sheer panic. 

The fact that the police think that this shows I am inconsiderate, and the cause and not the victim of the close pass, and that they are prepared to put it in writing, as evidence, in court, is simply insane. If this gets to court, I look forwards IMMENSELY to seeing the police officer’s face when this evidence is discussed.

They are f******g prejudiced, incompetent, abusive, b******s. 

I have submitted a formal complaint, and contacted my MP, and Police and Crime Commissioner. I’m going nuclear on this one. Even if this doesn’t get to court, this is totally unacceptable.

One – you MUST get CUK involved in this!  That narrative of the incident is (more than) a bit rubbish.

Two – if the motorist was too close to you when you were at the edge of the cycle lane, I don’t think that they’d be a safe distance if you had moved a foot or so to your left so as to be in the middle of the cycle lane…

[chrisonabike]

the little onion wrote:

the little onion wrote:

They are f******g prejudiced, incompetent, abusive, b******s.

But perhaps don’t include that kind of evaluation in anything which might come before magistrates…

Again hope it gets dropped before it gets there but (I know we keep repeating) do consider counsel if you’ve not already!

[Hirsute]

Stunned that they could be so

Stunned that they could be so stupid.

This is victim blaming of a high degree.

They may as well have written “if the reporting person were not so fat, then the pass would not be as close”.
 

I must have missed the bit in the highway code where putting on your indicator gives you immediate priority over every other road user.

This is 3 years ago and did get a NIP for the left hook.

[Metal Mania]

This sounds like they are

This sounds like they are trying to intoduce your previous submissions as “bad character” evidence. If so they need challenging for the sake everyone who sends in videos. To echo other users, get a lawyer I’ll chip in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_character_evidence

It might be worth contacting Martin Porter, although he is a compensation lawyer he has an interest in cycling and might be able to assist getting a suitable criminal advice. This web page is quite old.

https://martinporterqc.blogspot.com/

[wtjs]

They will try hard to
They will try hard to interview you. I was contacted by various means 13 times until I sent a cease and desist notice citing harrassment
If TLO wants it, I have all the video, audio and succeeding correspondence in which a BMW pillock close-passed me, then threatened to ‘fucking flatten’ me and to ‘knock me off’ my bike. The police tried very hard to do nothing at all about it and it was only after months of effort on my part that a police officer ‘spoke to’ the driver and said ‘he should not have spoken to you like that’.And that was it- no public order offence, no assault charge. The expletive-deleted police will do everything they can to favour a driver

[mdavidford]

brooksby wrote:

brooksby wrote:

did they have a graduation ceremony or something?

Classless of 2025?

[brooksby]

@the little onion: I really

@the little onion: I really hope that this all comes to naught, in the end.

And I’m sorry that this thread seems to have been hijacked by a Nigel (road.cc seems to have been invaded by a new batch of them lately – did they have a graduation ceremony or something?)

[HoarseMann]

I’m sure you are right. I’ve

I’m sure you are right. I’ve had some surprisingly differing responses from the police. Some police officers have been very professional and these submissions led to prosecutions or driving courses. Others have questioned my evidence and even, unbelieveably, insinuated that I was lying by saying the driver overtook me on a bend, as it doesn’t look like a bend! (last time I looked at a map it was a bend!). Then there was the case where I had to report it to the IOPC for them to take it further.

So, I’ve got a really healthy scepticism of the police. Wouldn’t trust them at all to do the right thing.

[quiff]

True – same as a close pass

True – same as a close pass (I’ve put the wig back on!) 

[mdavidford]

Although swearing in public

Although swearing in public isn’t an offence per se. It’s only if it satisfies certain other criteria that it becomes an offence. So it’s not just dubious whether the public interest criteria is satisfied – it’s dubious whether an offence has been committed at all.

[Author]

Replies