- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Met Police confront cyclist for swearing at them (video @BeebsG/Twitter)Met Police admit officers "clearly wrong" to scold cyclist who swore when unmarked vehicle blocked bus lane
A senior Metropolitan Police inspector admitted officers were "clearly wrong" when confronting a cyclist who swore at them for blocking a London bus lane with their parked unmarked vehicle.
The footage which has been widely shared on social media shows two officers approach the rider, who is travelling with two young children, after he told the police to "get out the f****** way".
As the cyclist laughs at the fact he did not realise it was a police vehicle the blue lights come on before one of the officers proceeds to scold the cyclist for apparently "committing public order offences" and swearing in front of his children.
Tell me you’re aNt1-cYCL1St without telling me you’re aNt1-cYCL1St @theJeremyVine @JoRigby_Balham @carlafrancome @London_Cycling @MikeyCycling @SafeCycleLDN @wandscycling @HF_Cycling @crisortunity pic.twitter.com/FV5FiKdVwj
— Bea Gator (@BeebsG) November 26, 2022
The officer driving adds: "It's not all about you", returning to the vehicle while the main officer involved warns that "the wrong type of people" might "ram" or "stab" the cyclist if they were on the receiving end of the shout.
"You're swearing in the street with two small children that are yours, so you're committing public order offences with your kids," the main officer says. "How inconsiderate and stupid can you be? You want to put your kids lives at risk? There are people out there that if you swear at them, would come after you.
"Also swearing in the street is against the law, you just did it. It's a public order offence, in a public place where there's small children, you cannot swear.
The incident unfolded last Wednesday (23rd November) shortly before 8am, just south of Wandsworth Bridge, nearing the Wandsworth Roundabout on Bridgend Road.
Part 2 pic.twitter.com/7auwPqKf3h
— Bea Gator (@BeebsG) November 26, 2022
In the second part of the video the officer questioned whether a cyclist would have priority moving into another lane to pass a parked car.
"Sorry, I don't like it when the rules are misinterpreted," the cyclist replies. "I believe I have a right to pull out, indicate in front of another car. Anyway, it happened, I moved out and came past you.
"The only reason I had to do that manoeuvre is because you're in the way. I was upset, I swore at you and do you know what? I'd probably do it again and hope I wasn't going to get some arsehole from Wandsworth beat me up.
"Swearing in front of my children is my choice. Now you guys do a great job but please enforce the law on the correct rules."
Following more than 250,000 thousand views and comments from many — including Jeremy Vine who called the officer's argument "extraordinary" — inspector Tony Adkins of the Metropolitan Police's Roads and Transport unit admitted the officer's lecture was "clearly wrong".
Thanks for alerting us to this. Inspector Tony Adkins has viewed this video - please see the comment below. pic.twitter.com/5Ocqz6igRB
— Roads&Transport MPS (@MPSRTPC) November 27, 2022
Vine said the policing looked like a "Comic Relief sketch" and "he [the officer] realised his assertion that the cyclist had committed a crime was wrong, so he changed it to an argument about possibly endangering himself by accidentally swearing at a criminal."
Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.
Latest Comments
- SecretSam 2 sec ago
Fantastic that someone just thought of a new app that communicates to a group of people at the same time, as part of a private discussion group....
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 10 min 11 sec ago
So does my Enviolo CVT . . . but we know what OldRidgeback means. When I saw the copper accelerate away on the bike I thought - I bet that's in a...
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 19 min 14 sec ago
An eBike is human powered. It can't move unless the rider pedals. Illegal eBikes (throttles, 'chipped', etc) are a different matter. But a blanket...
- David9694 34 min 36 sec ago
The old "one-two" seems familiar, but even if the collision happened at breakfast time, the bit about the £1400 quote appearing same day doesn't...
- Rekrab 49 min 14 sec ago
This must be the worst website on the internet.
- froze 8 hours 21 min ago
I agree, all you have to do is look back on the history of the TDF and discover that since 1968 the average speed has only gone up about 3 mph,...
- ktache 9 hours 9 min ago
I believe the word you meant to use was quiet.
- HarrogateSpa 11 hours 15 min ago
Mostly due to the court case - they are stuck doing what Hornbeam Park Developments want, or they'll probably face another judicial review....
- David9694 11 hours 22 min ago
thay Shoud be mAde to haVe a regustartion plate s...
- Glov Zaroff 11 hours 28 min ago
"It's worth noting that Enve currently doesn't have a time trial bike in its lineup. It will be interesting to discover whether a time trial bike...
Add new comment
73 comments
Shameful. Entitled cyclist who felt it perfectly acceptable to swear in front of his children at just any member of the public (they happened to be police officers) who happened to be legitimately stopped in the bus lane. Police behaviour was reasonable and measured in all circumstances.
Today I learned that wasting time to misinform the public about UK law is "reasonable and measured". It could be worse I guess; our taxes could be spent on the police doing worse things, like raping and murdering perfectly innocent people (e.g. Sarah Everard) or swapping pictures of corpses (Henry and Smallman). I guess the behaviour of these idiots is "reasonable and measured" by comparison; it probably wasn't even the worst thing they did that shift!
Police officers are not just any member of the public as far as British law is concerned.
How could an unmarked vehicle with no working hazard lights be considered legitimately stopped?
The police behaviour was so reasonable and measured that their boss is having a word with them.
From the sheer stupidity of your post, are you sure you're not a returning user that's just been banned?
Welcome back, Nige.
Perish the thought that a cyclist would feel that a mandatory lane should not be used by motorised vehicles for parking.
At the point of inconvenience, it was not known they were police. Good that there very important op had to be interrupted to state incorrect legal claims for a trivial interaction.
In the heat of the moment, the police offers should not expect any member of the public to have an exact and encyclopedic knowledge of the law.
But in context, this wasn't the time nor the place to educate and inform. Certainly no regard to safety by anyone involved holding a discussion in the manner it occurred.
And they weren't on point with regards section 5.
Personally, I would feel intimidated and isolated from protection by the law if I was treated similarly.
In fact, had the officers said that they felt harassed, alarmed or distressed, this would have been appropriate.
However, I'm wondering what their priority was at the moment of operation? Their guidelines advise them not to compromise an operation unless a significant crime is in progress or there is a threat to life. They flashed the blues, revealing their presence and got distracted too easily. What triggered them to get out and blow their cover? Where is their restraint?
As no stated crime had been committed, the officers potentially exceeded their powers of stop and search by stopping the cyclist.
If this happens to me, I ask the officer why they have stopped me. If there is no clear reason to do so I inform the officer politely that I'm happy to help them but wish to continue the discussion at the nearest police station, if they wish to follow me there.
It's just necessary that YOU have to diffuse the situation.
The contradiction of an important operation whilst simultaneously stopping a cyclist for something unimportant was raised in the twitter thread. I never got as far as finding if that was answered.
I also wondered if I would have stopped. I mean the officers can't be stopping me, they must be after the person the op is for surely ?
Reminds me of a chap from university who was followed for about a mile by police. When he got to his destination, they caught up with him asking him why he was cycling so fast away from them when they wanted him to stop.
"That's my normal speed"
The way you say that, it's almost like you don't think an operation to embarass yourself by pulling over sweary cyclists isn't important.
police offers should not expect any member of the public to have an exact and encyclopedic knowledge of the law
Very amusing- in Lancashire, the police can't even work out how Advanced Stop Lines work, despite it being a non-arduous task to read a couple of paragraphs of the HC. It's also the law that vehicles on the road must posses a valid MOT certificate- not in Lancashire they don't! The modern trend here is to disregard this optional MOT from the outset
Well that makes sense - why not trust the manufacturer to deliver a working vehicle in legal condition...?
Well that makes sense - why not trust the manufacturer to deliver a working vehicle in legal condition...?
While the policeman's lecture was inappropriate, the cyclist's misinterpretation of the changes to the HC were extremely alarming. Just because the cycle lane is blocked that doesn't give you right of way, priority actually, over vehicles in the lane you have to pull into. You still have to observe, indicate, and pull out when it's safe, not just indicate and pull out expecting other road users to cede priority.
Erm, if that is what the cyclist states, you are correct. However it wasn't his actions in the video. He indicated his intentions a good seven or so seconds before it occurred, and glanced backwards at the rear car several times, including a full head turn, (hence the car appearing in the camera periphery), to ensure it was safe and the rear car was not coming past.
That is what he says. He claims that he has right of way to indicate and pull out if the cycle lane is blocked and that drivers then have to give way. He's seriously misunderstood the new HC rules.
An interpretation of what you've written is if he signals and has pulled out then traffic is obliged to give way as he's established in the lane - but you rightly suggest, as we often experience on the motorway with lorries emerging when you are at V2, a signal in itself gives no priority to change lanes.
Stupid thing to say then. And didn't seem backed up by the actions he actually did do which seemed ok.
What not even The BOLAS!
Doesn't anybody think that that policeman looks nastier than the whole of Wandsworth ?
When having a chat with that officer, they should have a look at his WhatsApp. I'd put good money on it being very enlightening.
The public order offence thing seems to be used quite a lot as a 'catch-all' when there's nothing else the police officer can get someone on, or if they just want to make a point. I've even seen them use it like that on PoliceTrafficInterceptorMotorwayCops, in front of a tv camera crew...
Is that the same as the old "Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" offence? There were a couple of coppers on my rugby team twenty years back who used to say whatever you were doing, if they wanted to nick you they could always use that.
And that's despite a precedent being set that swearing with only the police around ISNT likely to cause alarm... and so isn't a POO.
1312
Did you mean to post your PIN ?
It's the typing clock, but it's running a bit slow.
Can't tell if the replies to this are meant to be ironic, but ACAB indeed.
(At risk of condescending, A=1, C=3, A=1 and B=2)
Nope, I had no idea what they meant nor what acab is until you explained it
Always Carry A Bible?!
https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/crime_news/ITS_OK_TO_SWEAR_AT_THE_POLICE_%E2%80%93_ISN%E2%80%99T_IT__(18_January_2012).html
"if a prosecution is to be successful from a technical point then there needs to be evidence of harassment alarm or distress"
Not really convinced the officers were distressed, in fact they said they arrest the type of people who will assault you for swearing.
Couldn't get the link to work but yes its Section 5 of the Public Order Act which covers Harassment, Alarm or Distress
The CPS Charging guidelines are further clarified "With effect from 1 February 2014, section 5 no longer includes words, behaviour, or displays which are simply “insulting”". I think there may be a failure in updating this guidance to all staff.
It goes on to say "There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum (1989) Cr. App R 261 )"
Pages