[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

[bikes]

If Cycling UK aren’t helping
If Cycling UK aren’t helping you already, please start a GoFundMe for lawyer’s fees. I would like to see this story get more widespread coverage.

[Steve K]

Hirsute wrote:

Hirsute wrote:

Please take a lawyer. I’m sure people on here would contribute to a fund for this if required.

Agreed, and I’d contribute.

You could try dropping Rory McCarron a line – https://www.leighday.co.uk/about-us/our-people/senior-staff/rory-mccarron/ – I’m sure he’d give you an initial view.

[Hirsute]

The wording doesn’t mention
The wording doesn’t mention hypothetical, it talks of a person. If it were hypothetical, it would be unnecessary since a hypothetical person could reflect any projection required.
The general wording of acts and SIs tends to a reasonable person.

But as I’ve always said in this thread – get a lawyer.

You can also try on bluesky
@mrmarkhodson.bsky.social
Who is willing to help.

[the little onion]

Actually, just wearing is

Actually, just swearing is enough if it is likely that someone would have been in earshot, and likely offended. You just have to swear loudly in a street to commit an offence here. It doesn’t have to offend the  person the swearing was aimed at, just a hypothetical bystander.

[Hirsute]

No because
No because
The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

The prosecution have to show that the abusive driver would be caused alarm or distress when they already were happy to use abusive terms. Not that the op simply swore.

[Bungle_52]

Hirsute wrote:

Hirsute wrote:

Please take a lawyer. I’m sure people on here would contribute to a fund for this if required.

Good advice. Just because you are in the right doesn’t mean you’ll be found not guilty.

Count me in for a contribution if needed.

[IanGlasgow]

You can’t win.

You can’t win.

If you swear then you committed a public order offence and they can only prosecute the driver who close-passed/swroare at/threatened/physically assaulted you if they also prosecute you for the public order offence of swearing in response to the drivers actions.

If you don’t swear then there’s no evidence that you felt threatened or intimidated so there’s no offence to prosecute.

[Rendel Harris]

the little onion wrote:

Basically, just as misogeny exists in the police and in society, anti-cyclist prejudice exists in society and the police. 

Absolutely without a doubt, a small example recently: I was cycling down The Mall in London from Buckingham Palace towards Admiralty Arch and Marlborough Road on the left which leads to Saint James’s Palace and is the only road leading off The Mall was closed for some ceremony or other, making the traffic lights that control the junction pretty much redundant. Not wishing to get in trouble I came to a stop and asked a policeman on duty at the barrier if it was okay for me to ride through the red light, he replied, “You lot don’t ask any other time, you just do it, so go on then…” I just gave him a dirty look and carried on but afterwards it occurred to me that if he had made such a generalised comment about a person from an ethnic minority, homosexuals or whatever he would (quite rightly) have been in serious trouble if a complaint was made, his language and his tone showed that he obviously works in an environment where abuse towards cyclists and stereotyping them as an homogenous entity is the norm.

It’s absolutely outrageous that the authorities have continued this ridiculous prosecution against you; they should never have taken action in the first place and even if they felt it necessary to do something it’s quite clear from your statement of the facts that a simple “Mind your language next time, people could use that as a basis for a complaint against you” warning would be ample. Good luck, keep us informed as to how it goes and as I see you are Cycling UK member I hope they are offering legal services to support you? 

Road.cc eds, this is a case which would seem to have serious ramifications for all cyclists if prosecutions are going to be initiated for swearing at people who have nearly killed us, one for you to investigate further?

[Hirsute]

Please take a lawyer. I’m
Please take a lawyer. I’m sure people on here would contribute to a fund for this if required.

[the little onion]

an update on two counts:

an update on two counts:

-this is now going to the magistrates court. Sigh.

-I was subject to a close pass recently, a particularly outrageous incident, which also involved the driver winding down the window to shout helpful, expletive laden, advice on road positioning. I reported this firstly as a driving offence, which has been taken further, but secondly, as a public order offence for the aggression and swearing. I have been told that the police will NOT be taking this further. THis is because apparently I replied (politely, without swearing, with a “what are you on about?”) thus continuing the incident, and because I couldn’t reasonably be scared by a driver of a 2.5 tonne range rover driving very close to me whilst shouting sweary abuse. This is in sharp contrast to my incident which I face court for, where the driver shouted sweary abuse at me, and where they claimed to be scared of a cyclist whilst in a 2 tonne car with a 3 litre engine and centrally locked doors. 

 

The sheer injustice, inconsistency, and nakedly anti-cyclist prejudice, on display is a disgrace. I simply have no faith in the police to administer justice on behalf of cylcists. We are always at fault, never the victim.

I know it is a more severe kind of comparison, but what we face is a less serious version of the Wayne Cousins/Sarah Everard incident. Basically, just as misogeny exists in the police and in society, anti-cyclist prejudice exists in society and the police. And like the Everard murder showed the lack of any kind of measure to address misogyny within the police, I see something similar in the police. I would not be surprised if road traffic police are regularly sharing jokes about killing cyclists on whatsapp chats and the like, just like Cousins shared extreme violent misogynist chats with colleagues. 

[HoarseMann]

Not quite the same scenario,

Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14143491/Police-apologise-horse-rider-theyre-investigating-calling-gypsy-pikey-confirm-theyre-probing-assault-abuse.html

(DM – sorry)

[mattw]

I’ve only just spotted this.

I’ve only just spotted this.

I think you are right to reject police cautions – there has been a culture of trying to use these as an “easy win” for the police, even though in theory there is required to be sufficient evidence to convict in court.

When these came in there were hundreds of cases where it was presented as a “quick and easy way out”, which caused problems later first when the Govt decided they would stay on record until the offencer was 99, and also when it became clear they would appear on Enhanced Vetting & Barring checks. Young people lost potential careers in caring professions, as clearly with one of those on a sensitive job application management would play safe.

I suggest attempting to get this killed before it gets to Court – magistrates can be unpredictable and might be channelling Captain Mainwaring, or be having a grumpy day.

My suggested action is a letter from a knowledgeable solicitor to the Investogating Officer or more senior Officer or CPS bod, as appropriate – explaining why it is an inappropriate prosecution and requesting that it be dropped. I’m not sure whether Cyclists Defence Fund or your Insurer will help (if not I’d be paying for a solicitor myself if it was me), but here is a case where they got a fixed penalty cancelled which was the first that came to hand when I looked:

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/case-dropped-for-fixed-penalty-notice-cyclist-alex-paxton-22983

ATB

[hawkinspeter]

the little onion wrote:

I didn’t remove the sound because I didn’t think that it mattered – quite clearly the swearing was in reaction to an act of frankly horrid aggressive driving, so it was clearly reasonable. I simply could not imagine that it was a public order offence. And also, my reaction in the video just underlined how bad the driving was, if it weren’t readily apparent. Once again, genuinely gobsmacked at the police reaction.

To be charitable to the police (though I wonder why I should), they’re acting on a specific complaint raised by the motorist and so are doing their job. However, I wonder why they didn’t just send you a warning letter instead which would have been far more appropriate. Ideally they should treat the swearing as a natural consequence of the driver’s abysmal driving. It’d be like prosecuting a stabbing victim for bleeding on the pavement.

I sincerely hope that the case just gets thrown out as a complete waste of time and money.

[wtjs]

in other cycling cases, they

in other cycling cases, they’ve been dropped before trial b/c a prosecutor gets hold of the file & can back down 

This fiction that it’s ‘all the decision of the CPS’ is just another police dodge, so they can blame some un-named person elsewhere for the police decision to abandon the case against an offending motorist – the police just tell the CPS what the police ‘want to be advised’ in cases of offences against cyclists which neither organisation could care less about. However, the general venality and hostility to cyclists displayed by the police should not be underestimated when cases against ​cyclists are concerned. Although this case appears exceptionally stupid even for the police, we should not forget how much they dislike cyclists who annoy them by reporting, with high quality indisputable evidence, offences committed by motorists that they would much prefer to ignore with a forgiving smile: that’s OK, everybody does it

[the little onion]

I didn’t remove the sound

I didn’t remove the sound because I didn’t think that it mattered – quite clearly the swearing was in reaction to an act of frankly horrid aggressive driving, so it was clearly reasonable. I simply could not imagine that it was a public order offence. And also, my reaction in the video just underlined how bad the driving was, if it weren’t readily apparent. Once again, genuinely gobsmacked at the police reaction.

[Author]

Replies