[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

[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.

[bikeman01]

I’m pretty sure that you wont

I’m pretty sure that unless you say something to drop yourself in it, that the police are interviewing you for ‘a non-crime hate incident’. They are obliged to interview you because someone has taken offence to something you have said.

Whether they inteview you or not, they will record the incident on the national police database and it will become a factor if you are involved in any future incidents.

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. You do not have to co-operate, the outcome will be the same. And you could drop yourself in it further if you do talk to them. The police are not your friends, they are investigating a complaint which they know is wasting their time but if they can get a nick out of it they will.. make sure its not you, dont succumb to interview.

[wtjs]

You’ve missed the bit where

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

And yet, not a peep from The Filth about this

https://upride.cc/incident/ku71cuk_montgomery44tonner_closepass/

Good to see they’re concentrating their resources on the most important threats to Society. The police truly are hopeless, useless, ineffectual b******s!

[Hirsute]

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

[quiff]

I’m pretty sure they were

I’m pretty sure they were reviewing previous complaints the little onion had submitted to the police, not social media. But your point stands.  

[bikeman01]

the little onion wrote:

…as part of their evidence, they cited the fact that in the 50+ submissions that I have uploaded in recent years, four of them had swear words in them, and this was evidence that I’m a frequent offender.

Its frankly unbelievable that the police would throw so much resourse at this by trawling social media to find supporting evidence of your swearing when they frequently claim to be short staffed. And people actually believe it and defend them.

They’d have a field day on my socials!!

[bikeman01]

Hirsute wrote:

Aside from that being 20/20 hindsight, you’d had to have made a policy decision to disable the camera mic. If it goes to court, you’ll have to supply the original which will have sound. Whether the police could demand the original before then as part of their investigation, I don’t know.

I really dont believe that the police would use their forensic team to determine if the sound track had been removed. Just tell them you didnt record the sound. This has cropped up so many times, I thought everone knew the police are cu47s so dont drop yourself in it.

[Bungle_52]

Thanks for the update. My

Thanks for the update. My recent contact with CUK has also renewed my faith in them to a large extent. Once again, good luck.

[the little onion]

Because I like to keep people

Because I like to keep people updated. I had a very helpful chat with CyclingUK today. Can’t say too much, but I still firmly believe that they, via the Cyclist Defence Fund, are very supportive of cyclists, particularly those who submit footage of dodgy driving to the police. I remain a member, and a big fan. However, it is also clear that they have finite resources and can’t fight every single case. I’m sure you will read about other cases that they are involved in on this site. But at this point, they can’t support my case financially, although they gave me strong moral support and helpful advice.

[BikingBud]

the little onion wrote:

SNIP:

Fortunately, enough people had stopped at this point that the driver changed his mind, jumped back in his car, and sped off.

 

With regards that case, the driver has been cautioned, and had to attend some courses. I think this is with regards assault and dangerous driving – the police haven’t given me the full details. But I can post about this incident now that the case is closed.

SNIP

How can attending some course be appropriate for assault? Muppets!

Hamsphire police were similarly dismissive after a white van who erroneously considered that the delay he was sat in was due to cyclists, us. And was not  anything to do with the large number of vehicles parked outside the church blocking the road on a Sunday morning. 

He overtook and cut in so I went around the drivers side he then drove across that side to block me. I suggested he was a “tool” he didn’t even get out of the van too chicken shit but hit me from within the van and then drove away like a scared little schoolboy.

We didn’t have cameras but my wife followed to where the van was parked, got the details and made a complaint to the police who said the VRN was incorrect and ther was no corroborating evidence.  Muppets!

I suggested that if someboy had been assualted on a Friday evening outside a pub then they would likely work with the VICTIM to acheive best evidence, why is it any different because I’m on a bike?

[BikingBud]

Bradford drivers mate!

Bradford drivers mate!

There’s no space and nowhwere to go, Fox corner is always jammed up. Where were the expecting to go?

Surely the observation that the white van in front is not going away from you means any attempt to overtake going through a box junction and when approaching a fixed railing with conflicting traffic is sufficient to deem the driver’s behaviour extremely prejudicial to your safety.

I must say though in that circumstance I would have been in prime position going across Victoria Street to block them trying to squeeze between you and the lights on the island 

[HoarseMann]

Well, I’ve watched the video

Well, I’ve watched the video and I didn’t see anyone in it who would likely to be offended.

I think that video is your evidence that this charge cannot stick:

[the appeal court] found that the words did amount to abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Having decided that the words spoken were potentially abusive, the court went on to state that there must also be proof that the words were spoken within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by them. There was no evidence of that here and the conviction was therefore quashed.

Evidence must always be adduced that the person who was within hearing of the words was likely to have been harassed, alarmed or distressed. It cannot be inferred.

https://6kbw.com/publications/articles/section-5-of-the-public-order-act-1986-the-impact-of-harvey-v-dpp/

[wtjs]

If you cycle, you cannot

If you cycle, you cannot trust the police. They are your enemy, not your friend

Crikey! I never knew that!!

 as reflected by how no specialist road traffic officers I have dealt with actually cycle, and the deeply prejudiced attitudes on show

Yep! That’s it, and there’s the lying, conniving and cheating

[the little onion]

I have tried calling. They

I have tried calling. They are just so busy. And the legal advice phone line is about what to do in a crash, not this kind of incident.

[Author]

Replies