[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

[quiff]

I tend to agree. But, to play

I tend to agree. But, to play devil’s advocate a second…

If I submitted a close pass video, like TLO’s – would I want the police to trawl back and see if they have any previous evidence on file of similar incidents which might demonstrate a pattern of behaviour and support a prosecution? Yes. Whether what they have found in TLO’s case is any good to support a prosecution is another matter – but there is an argument that, once a decision has been made to charge, they are just doing thorough policing. 

Clearly I and others here think that swearing in public is degrees of magnitude less serious than the close pass which prompted it, and query if it’s in the public interest to prosecute it – but they’re both on the statute book to be charged.

All of that said, removing the devil’s advocate’s robe and wig, I sincerely hope the CPS choose not to pursue this or it gets thrown out.      

[Rendel Harris]

HoarseMann wrote:

 Quite possibly a couple of officers who have a dislike of cyclists in general, yourself specifically or both.

As I think I said a couple of pages back on this thread, it sounds to me very like someone down the station has got fed up with having to do the paperwork on bad driving submissions and so has deliberately chosen to turn the molehill into a mountain in the hope that TLO and perhaps others will be put off submitting videos for fear of ending up with a charge themselves. I’m sorry to say that my experience over the last few years with police officers is that many will expend far more energy on persuading people to lighten their workload by not bringing charges than they actually will do bringing criminals to book.

[HoarseMann]

This does indeed sound like

This does indeed sound like an abuse of power from the police. They’re really going all-in with what seems to be a very bad hand. Quite possibly a couple of officers who have a dislike of cyclists in general, yourself specifically or both.

As others have said, get some legal advice. If you end up with a cyclist-hating magistrate presiding over the case, you might be in trouble. It’s far easier to get the case thrown out due to a fault in the process (if one exists), than hope for sense to prevail.

I can imagine (and as you say) this is very costly, time consuming and stressful. Stick in there. In the grand scheme of things even the worst case outcome will not be _that_ bad.

There’s a lot of support for you here and I can certainly empathise with the way you conducted yourself during the incident when faced with such a threat – particularly when it’s a culmination of similar incidents. 

[Bungle_52]

You have my sympathy and my

You have my sympathy and my respect but please don’t assume that, even though the case against you sounds flimsy at best, that you will be found not guilty. You need to consult a lawyer and get representation.

I can’t believe CUK are letting you fight this on your own. They have the resources for a rebranding exercise and claiming they don’t have the resources for this is disappointing in the extreme.

Once again, if finances are a problem I’m willing to chip in a bit and I’m sure others would too.

[the little onion]

quiff wrote:

So depressing.

Separate, I know, but is the close pass at least being prosecuted?

 

Yes, it was. I think the driver had to attend a half day course, at a cost of £100 or so. Something like that.

[Tom_77]

Just out of interest, when

Just out of interest, when did proceedings start? For a Magistrates’ Court there’s a 6 month time limit, your initial post was back in October and in that you described the incident as happening a while ago.

I hope you’ve got professional legal representation, who should be all over things like this.

[Robert Hardy]

A ludicrous law, far more
A ludicrous law, far more archaic than the rather usefully descriptive ” wanton or furious driving”. It could only reasonably be applied when the hearer is a spinster of this parish over the age of 90, and even then only one who had lived a profoundly cloistered life.

[Secret_squirrel]

This is shocking.  I hope

This is shocking.  I hope this is resolved in your favour at some point.

[quiff]

So depressing.

So depressing.

Separate, I know, but is the close pass at least being prosecuted?

[Hirsute]

But you are taking a

But you are taking a solicitor as this sounds like something they would demolish the police on.

[mdavidford]

The fact that they’ve trawled

The fact that they’ve trawled through all your submissions in that way (instead of focussing on the actual event in question) seems to be more evidence of this being a vexatious prosecution that’s more aimed at making you shut up and go away than it does of anything else.

[chrisonabike]

That is pretty sad and sorry

That is pretty sad and sorry you have to go through this.

I hope it can all be put down to people in organisations not being able to back down and say “OK – I was wrong” or even “OK – I made a mistake”.  And it then being “impossible” to do other than say ridiculous things or even outright lie…

Hope at some point someone wakes up and smells the coffee – or their counsel / the CPS say “you know… this one isn’t going anywhere”.

[the little onion]

Sigh. So I went “not guilty”

Sigh. So I went “not guilty” and I now have the disclosure material. Which is sad but hilarous. Part of the police case is that I have a history of being “aggressive” on the road, based on my submissions. The hilarious part is that this covers less than 5% of my submissions. The extra hilarious part is what they think constitutes “aggressive” behaviour. In one instance, I was aggressive because I was not “correctly” positioned in the cycle lane, and in another I was aggressive because I was not “entirely” in the cycle lane. I mean, that is their sole reason why these instance means I am aggressive!! So, if you swerve round a pothole, move out of the cycle lane in order to turn right, or ride in a cycle lane which is narrower than your handlebars, you are being “aggressive”.

 

The sad thing is how much time, expense and stress this is causing me.

[mattw]

Pedany note:

Pedant note:

This is discussing Magistrates Court – no jury.

[bikeman01]

Hirsute wrote:

Hirsute wrote:

You’ve missed the bit where it’s going to court.

Indeed I did. I can only assume the Mr Onion allowed himself to be interviewed and dropped himself in it by not accepting the caution. A caution that he would never have been offered had he declined their request to interview him.

[Author]

Replies