When the police give an assaulted cyclist a warning

[Vorpal]

Cameras do not show visibility very well. Even helmet-mounted, they are more limited than eyes.

The cyclist rides that way everyday & knows the road well.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with his cycling.

The driver who assaulted him seems to have set up the situation for the purpose of assaulting him. He was clearly trying to block him on the outside; he went over the white line to do so. And when the cyclist took the invitation to undertake, the driver drove his car towards him; close enough for the cyclist to hit the bonnet. The motorist *said* to him as he assualted him, " every ***** day you're ***** <unintelligible>! I'm ***** tired of it!"

That said, even if the cyclist's road craft was less than letter perfect, why does anyone think he deserves criticism for it?

[Vorpal]

So what would I have done? I would have just stayed in primary behaving like a vehicle - not attempting to undertake or overtake at any point and also preventing anyone from overtaking or close passing me. Other option would be to dismount and walk on the pavement on the other side.

Would you honestly have sat in the queue, breathing exhaust for 10 minutes? And give up one of the advantages of commuting by bicycle?

[Oldjohnw]

Swearing at a police officer is a specific criminal offence under the Crime and Disorder Act (1999). As ever, the police go for the low hanging fruit. An easy hit.

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the controversy caused on even this mild-mannered forum suggests that this is not the incident to use as the centrepiece of a campaign to change the way the criminal justice system treats cyclists.

The rider may have suffered injustice and that fact (which I initially overlooked) that his caution was rescinded may be only partial redress but to base a broader campaign on this is IMO poor judgment. The people who need convincing are not those on here who criticise the rider but a much wider audience.
======================================================================================

PS I understood it was cleared up earlier in the thread that the rider was not accused of swearing at the police.

Swearing at a police officer is a specific criminal offence under the Crime and Disorder Act (1999). As ever, the police go for the low hanging fruit. An easy hit.

Can you explain this a bit more? Are you saying that the police should accept being sworn at?

[Oldjohnw]

IMO, the controversy caused on even this mild-mannered forum suggests that this is not the incident to use as the centrepiece of a campaign to change the way the criminal justice system treats cyclists.

The rider may have suffered injustice and that fact (which I initially overlooked) that his caution was rescinded may be only partial redress but to base a broader campaign on this is IMO poor judgment. The people who need convincing are not those on here who criticise the rider but a much wider audience.
======================================================================================

PS I understood it was cleared up earlier in the thread that the rider was not accused of swearing at the police.

Swearing at a police officer is a specific criminal offence under the Crime and Disorder Act (1999). As ever, the police go for the low hanging fruit. An easy hit.

Can you explain this a bit more? Are you saying that the police should accept being sworn at?

No. But it was easier to charge the cyclist than the car driver. Many think the cyclist did nothing wrong. He did do something illegal.

[ChrisP100]

I feel in this instance, the police haven't treated everyone involved proportionally and fairly, which sadly is becoming all too common. This needs addressing.

I guess for me, I just try and do everything I can not to give drivers an excuse to be upset with me, and If that means I have to sit in traffic for a period of time, then so be it. I'd rather that than risk being assaulted by some driver who is already having a bad day (no, excuse I know). If I'm filtering through traffic I will always thank the driver behind when I pull in and I definitely think this helps to keep the peace. Same if I hold someone up. I will always give them a thumbs up and a wave when they eventually pass me.

I will never undertake, unless the road layout permits (bus/cycle lane or filter lane), as I learned this from a young age, when I attempted to under a car in a queue of traffic and the passenger decided to leap out without looking. How I wasn't seriously injured that day I'll never know.

[thirdcrank]

Oldjohnw

AIUI, the allegation against the driver was the subject of a formal disposal, in the form of some form of official caution.

At some stage, the allegation of the riders swearing was investigated. This seems to have been after the investigation of the driver. One implication earlier seems to be that the rider somehow pestered the police so the swearing investigation was to punish him for being a nuisance. Another possibility is that publication of the vid led to a complaint about the swearing. Not everybody who looks at these things is a cycling advocate.

Anyway, thanks for clearing up that you don't think that swearing at the police is ok

[fastpedaller]

Let's face it... The Police must hear some colourful language, and I'm surprised they are bothered by it - however, they can use it against someone if they wish and PLEBGATE was the senior example of this.

[cyclemad]

I am basing my opinions on English law ;-

Having viewed the footage several times I have to come to the conclusion that the cyclist , in my opinion, over reacted to the presence of the black vehicle . He should not have ''slapped the bonnet '' and immediately launch into a tirade of abusive language. There being caused - potential offences of criminal damage to the car, disorderly conduct in a public place ( sec 5 public order act ) and lastly conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace

The distance between the black car and the cyclist and manner of driving displayed by the driver, being of concern to the cyclist, did not support the actions of the cyclist .

These are opinions formed by viewing of cctv footage alone. Not having any other information to hand I can conclude that BOTH driver and cyclist should have received a verbal warning for their actions / conduct on the day.

Scottish law differs from English law in that a breach of the peace is a recordable / criminal offence and as such is dealt with in a different manner.

[thirdcrank]

Let's face it... The Police must hear some colourful language, and I'm surprised they are bothered by it - however, they can use it against someone if they wish and PLEBGATE was the senior example of this.

IMO, The only relevance of Plebgate here - which was a civil case, not a prosecution - was the judge's reasoning for his findings which,in my non-judicial words were "If somebody loses their rag, they also lose credibility as a witness (And megabucks, in costs etc.)"

AFAIK, the changes in the law referred to by Oldjohhnw above were not to protect the sensitivities of police officer but just the opposite.

Once upon a time, if the police were dealing with some sort of public disorder, the fact that the effing and blinding was happening in front of a crowd would be part of the police evidence. Then, the CPS wanted witness statements from all concerned. Not always practical. Inevitably, a case based only on police evidence went on appeal and Lord Justice Fastpedaller (not his real name) ruled that the police could not be provoked / distressed / whatever by colourful language and in due course, the law was changed. It's worth remembering that that was at a time of change in the law, as our learned friends and the New Labour government changed things like binding over orders - remembers ASBOs?- and the Common Law more generally eg affray.
====================================================================================

PS Here's the relevant bit of plebgate:

The judge said the MP was not in a state of mind that evening either to measure his words carefully or remember precisely what they were. He was satisfied that Mitchell did lose his temper and it was part of common experience of life that a loss of temper could lead both to loss of inhibition in speaking and recollection of what was said. “It follows that his adamant denial of uttering the words alleged is not of itself determinative of the issues.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... libel-case

[robing]

So what would I have done? I would have just stayed in primary behaving like a vehicle - not attempting to undertake or overtake at any point and also preventing anyone from overtaking or close passing me. Other option would be to dismount and walk on the pavement on the other side.

Would you honestly have sat in the queue, breathing exhaust for 10 minutes? And give up one of the advantages of commuting by bicycle?

Well I am fortunate in that I don't have to cycle in those sort of conditions and I wouldn't want to be in that situation.
I think the overtake at the beginning on a narrow road with poor visibility was particularly risky.

And I agree with Cyclemad - he overreacted with the slapping of the bonnet and the shouting and swearing.

I'm a fairly non confrontational sort of guy, particularly out on my bike when I am more vulnerable.
if you behave like this with the wrong sort of driver you are going to get attacked - and it could have been worse.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
My advise "Don't get out of your vehicle"!

I have had many drivers stop and get out and say along the lines ........."Whats your problem mate" This is normally following a dangerous maneuver by driver in which I simply raise my arm and no expletives / no finger to the sky.

I have had drivers reverse to follow me .......they turn around in the road and chase me down etc etc etc................cut me up and brake infront hoping to get me to crash..........wind window down and come along side driving in middle of road etc.

They do not have a leg to stand on when they get out and abuse / have a word, whats there defence..........................they are being mugged and in fear of their live

Advise to cyclist in a situation-

Stop get to kerb and walk back away from driver......any attempt to follow you will mean they intent to abuse / do you harm...........999.....and pray

[reohn2]

Cameras do not show visibility very well. Even helmet-mounted, they are more limited than eyes.

The cyclist rides that way everyday & knows the road well.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with his cycling.

The driver who assaulted him seems to have set up the situation for the purpose of assaulting him. He was clearly trying to block him on the outside; he went over the white line to do so. And when the cyclist took the invitation to undertake, the driver drove his car towards him; close enough for the cyclist to hit the bonnet. The motorist *said* to him as he assualted him, " every ***** day you're ***** <unintelligible>! I'm ***** tired of it!"

That said, even if the cyclist's road craft was less than letter perfect, why does anyone think he deserves criticism for it?

Absolutely spot on!
I get tired of victim blaming.....

[Jdsk]

That said, even if the cyclist's road craft was less than letter perfect, why does anyone think he deserves criticism for it?

Discussion of what happened in an attempt to learn from it isn't necessarily criticism in the sense of saying that someone did something wrong.

Jonathan

[reohn2]

So what would I have done? I would have just stayed in primary behaving like a vehicle - not attempting to undertake or overtake at any point and also preventing anyone from overtaking or close passing me. Other option would be to dismount and walk on the pavement on the other side.

Would you honestly have sat in the queue, breathing exhaust for 10 minutes? And give up one of the advantages of commuting by bicycle?

Spot on again!

The cyclist was set up by the driver and deliberately drove his car toward him in an effort to pinch him between the his car's near side and the kerb,then starts throwing his weight about when his precious Audi is touched by the genuinely frightened cyclist in fear of injury.
The driver simply doesn't like being in a jam and when someone else can skip past him(on a daily basis it seems)it infuriates him even more because he's "only on a bike".
Audi driver is a soft lad who needs some anger management lessons and to learn how to drive.
The cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong.
Audi driver did everything wrong and it should've cost him dearly.
As it is in this green and unpleasant land,TC's right it isn't an incident to base a campaign on,because when the deck is stacked against you,you'll never win and the deck is always stacked against the cyclist in the UK.