- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Public order offence for swearing during close pass
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.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Johnny Rags 1 hour 28 min ago
It would be nice if there were more lights on the market which mounted somewhere other than on the seatpost. Not all of us have half a yard of...
- Bungle_52 2 hours 37 min ago
This was a failure to give way at a roundabout so although it was relatively straightforward to anticipate and avoid there is traffic law to...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 45 min ago
Ah - I have now read Wikipedia on loons, and perhaps I can understand their objections:...
- wtjs 3 hours 57 min ago
she questioned what Police Scotland is doing to "deter dangerous driving and protect cyclists"...
- wtjs 4 hours 7 min ago
I've got a few reports coming up to one year where I've been told that they will take action but I don't know what action yet. I'll let you know...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 20 min ago
I feel Flintshire Lad's response - "A LABOUR councillor (candidate)!"...
- Sredlums 6 hours 1 sec ago
Haha, that my pet peeve....
- stonojnr 6 hours 39 min ago
I'm not sure the UCI worlds are on the protected sports list, as surely CX & MTB would be shown too, the Beeb probably just acquire it as part...
- bikeman01 7 hours 20 min ago
Re-deployed on Twitter duty?
Add new comment
116 comments
OK: here goes. I was hoping (see point 2 below) for this to in a different direction, but it doesn't appear to be going there:
Video here: https://vimeo.com/1053042277/ba82ecb97a?share=copy
Point 1: The first expletive happens just as they driver very close to me, edging me leftwards. You only see the nose of the car in the video briefly, but it was actually closer than this earlier. As you can see, I was actually moving slightly left to avoid being rammed.
Point 2: THE DRIVER WAS FILMING ME ON THEIR PHONE! You can't see this so clearly in the video, but I mentioned this in my original online submission to the police, and also in my police interview. They were looking at me, laughing, and filming me with their phone. It was absolutely deliberate, not 'sloppy' driving. Of course, the police didn't bother to ask the 'victim' of my swearing about it.
Point 3. The reason I unclipped the camera and waved it at them was to show they were being filmed, so they didn't ram me with their car.
Point 4: As I slow down for the traffic, and you hear me say "sorry but....", it is clear and obvious that they were the ones continuing the conversation. The driver swore at me in this, but this admittedly isn't clear in the audio.
I appreciate all the supportive comments here, but this experience (and some other bike related incidents that are still playing out) has been really detrimental to my mental health. I am not sure I have the strength to fight it. The b******ds have won again.
As one had every reason to suspect, your video proves there is absolutely no justification in the police pursuing this action against you. Your (thoroughly justified in my opinion) expletives contain no threat whatsoever towards the driver, the first one is telling them to get away from you and the subsequent ones are simply punctuating what you say in a way that most of us do when we are upset or annoyed. The decision to prosecute is quite obviously massive overkill and clearly reflective of bias; I would hazard a guess that someone down the station is fed up with being asked to do their job properly by cyclists submitting videos and thought you know what, let's cut down on the workload by making cyclists scared to submit complaints in case they end up facing prosecution themselves. I can thoroughly empathise with both the way you behaved in the video and the stress the whole unjustified process must have put on you. Simply disgraceful.
Can you let us know whether cycling UK have been of any use. I have found them particularly unhelpful recently to the extent I am getting no replies to emails. V disappointing for a charity that is supposed to be on the cyclist's side.
to be honest, CyclingUK haven't replied to the majority of my emails in recent months. I love their national campaigns, but it seems they are very stretched when dealing with more local cases.
Thanks for the info. V disappointing this. I would have thought if the cyclist defence fund is for anything it is for cases like this. I left British Cycling to join cyling UK and now I'm questioning whether to renew.
Thanks - I have my suspicions along similar lines. I do think that a more likely explanation is just old-fashioned prejudice. The reviewing officers haven't ridden a bike on the roads in decades, so have no practical experience. They also suffer, in my opinion, from a kind of prejudice against cyclists that sees them as an illegitimate road user, a rogue hazard. Furthermore, I think that they see absolutely no hierarchy of vulnerability on the road, so that in a swearing-laced shouting match between two people, the one who should feel more threatened is the one in a two-tonne locked metal box capable of 100+mph, not the one protected by a few mm of lycra.
These are not run-of-the-mill beat officers, but actual specialist road traffic officers. Who told me happily that they have literally have NO experience of cycling on the highway in DECADES of full-time policing. I mean, zero minutes sat on a bike in the road in their adult lives. And we wonder why the police don't understand cycling?
First para bit of a bitter pill. When you're in a public service with an enforcement power, people will try in all sorts of ways, to play you. You have to never forget there are always two sides to every story. In the police's case with public complaints, it's usually one thing has led to another and ideally someone has to be deemed to have "crossed the line" - but all too often the lines between guilt perpetrator and innocent victim are not clear-cut. As we slide into right-wing politics, perpetrators become victims all to easily.
My anecdote coming up suggests some niavety from the police about acting even-handedly. After I was knocked off my bike by a driver a few years ago my father advised me to hand deliver a letter claiming damages to the driver's house a few days later. Stupid advice, at best from another era. I think it was the driver's mother who opened the door - she took the letter an that was that. I got a 'phone call from the police later that day saying don't do that - point taken. That's what you're dealing with. Unknown to me at that point, the driver had on the day of the incident gone to the police station and lied her head off to them - in their shoes I'd find that really annoying. I still remember the voicemail left by the police officer who visited me to take my statement to get ''my version" of what happened. There was only on one fucking version.
As others have said, there's no way on this Earth a driver with their 2 tonne suit of motorised armour can claim to be scared of a cyclist, not least when they've just put them in fear of their life.
Sorry this is not the fault of the police, this is the driver after 'revenge'. He may be prosecuted for dangerous driving so he is out to get his own back, so has complained to the police and they are obliged by law to act.
Reason for this theory, I have a story to tell.
I live near a school and in the twenty years we've lived here the issue with parking has got worse. There are pretty yellow markings on the roads, ignored, pavements driven onto. The local bus route had to be changed because at school time it got stuck. Anyway one thing that really annoys me is the drivers sitting there, sometimes for 30+ minutes with their engines running, summer or winter. I was walking past one car last November and I gently tapped on the passenger window to ask the driver to switch off. The woman said she would switch off when she was good and ready. I pointed out it was illegal, as was her using her mobile behind the wheel. She said mobile use was fine as she wasn't driving anywhere. The upshot is I've been reported to the police for assault as she was 'in fear' of me. Now I didn't swear, threaten, touch or get anywhere near her, but she wants her own back and the police have to be seen to be taking it seriously. So far two conversations with the Police and I'm waiting on the next stage.
I would point out that at 68 years old and 74 kgs, the idea of me threatening anyone is quite hilarious.
The police are obliged to investigate but they have considerable licence, along with the CPS, to decide if an offence has been comitted and/or if it is serious enough to require further action, as any cyclist who's submitted clear evidence of driving offences and had them NFA'd knows. The police could easily in this case, and in yours by the sound of it, have told the complainant either that they did not think there was a case to answer, that they did not think the case had sufficient chance in court or that it was not in the public interest to proceed, so I'd say it is their fault to a considerable degree.
The police are obliged to investigate but they have considerable licence, along with the CPS, to decide if an offence has been comitted and/or if it is serious enough to require further action
This charming view of police thought and action processes may apply in some areas of the country, but they certainly don't apply in the Land of the Traffic Offender: Lancashire. You have seen the videos too often, and I have the reporting details for all of them. The Filth don't investigate, don't reply and don't take any action.The PCC responds to complaints with 'this is an operational decision of the police'. Traffic law and active travel are dead ducks in at least one area of the country.
someone down the station is fed up with being asked to do their job properly by cyclists submitting videos and thought you know what, let's cut down on the workload by making cyclists scared to submit complaints in case they end up facing prosecution themselves
So when somebody (me) submits numerous indisputable videos of offences, the police REALLY don't like it when they are deprived of a means of victim blaming like this because the only (I think) video of mine with swearing on it was when the offender said he was going to 'fucking flatten' me and knock me off my bike. No swearing from me. The police response was 'verbal words of advice' to the driver. As you know, for years the police have failed to respond to my reports.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Seconded
What does your local MP think about this situation? Have you raised it with them?
I for one can't understand that tit for tat verbal abuse can be prosecuted on one side, but not the other...
However, the video evidence will speak for itself. Get a lawyer, enjoy your day in court and make sure you get compensation for your costs when this inevitably gets thrown out.
Unfortunately if the newly added video is all the video evidence, it doesn't show much of the driver's verbals. I really sympathise with the little onion here and hope there's footage showing the driver giving as good as they got. Such a depressing state of affairs and one I could well imagine myself in.
Late - but I'd put my hand in my pocket for this one. Sounds like a serious and pretty flagrant example of partiality by the police. Needs heard.
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)
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...
ATB
Dont know why you didnt just send in a muted video if it was only your language that was incriminating. Did the or anyone else even hear you swearing or did he just get that from viewing the evidence?
We all know that the police are now very sensitive... bless em.
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.
Firstly it's pretty desirable to leave the sound in if at all possible, not only so the police can hear how genuinely shocked the victim was by the incident but also to give them extra evidence in terms of engine noise et cetera that might help them judge proximity; secondly, in an early response on this thread TLO said "The second two F-bombs came less than 5 seconds later when the driver wound down the window to call me a "f-ing danger", and which I pointed out where the real "f-ing danger" was" so the driver definitely heard the language in question.
Pages