- 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
- Stebbo 1 sec ago
His career has been over for a few years.
- jarpots 22 min 26 sec ago
Nice product but has limitations, like most. Particularly if you use heavy electric bikes.
- AidanR 53 min 19 sec ago
Not sure why they don't take a cue from elsewhere in Belfast and paint the kerb stones.
- NickJP 2 hours 7 min ago
I like the Daysaver multitools: https://daysaver.fun/.
- wtjs 2 hours 47 min ago
Whereas I would be surprised if the police ever took any action over a road traffic offence- except those they punish because they don't like the...
- wtjs 2 hours 52 min ago
All the manufacturers are non-American!
- chrisonabike 3 hours 8 min ago
Yes... and they're a *bit* insulated from the "must grab attention" imperative...
- stevez123 3 hours 8 min ago
I wish my tires were as easy to mount on the rim as yours. I usually end up with blisters on my thumbs after repairing a flat. Next time use a tire...
- David W 2 hours 25 min ago
This tragic case just makes me more concerned about the attitudes of some drivers now. Just last week, while cycling home from work (at about...
- Destroyer666 7 hours 14 sec ago
In the eyes of an idiot like you? No worries.
Add new comment
132 comments
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.
You've missed the bit where it's going to court.
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!
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.
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.
Thanks for the update. My recent contact with CUK has also renewed my faith in them to a large extent. Once again, good luck.
I can now add another detail to this horror-show, as a related case has now concluded.
A few months previous to this (as the officers interviewing me about the swearing were aware), I was subject to an assault by a driver. What happened was I was cycling on a painted cycle lane when a driver did a massive U-turn in the opposite carriageway right in front of me, blocking the cycle lane and also part of the pavement. I didn't have time to brake to a stop, but I did manage a nifty swerve and a squeeze between this car and the main flow of traffic.
My bike somehow made very slight contact with the car. My best feeling is that the driver opened his door as I was going passed, and brushed my pannier. Said driver took deep offense at this, beeped his horn, and started chasing me, driving at me - including driving with all four wheels on the pavement at one point, and through a red light (I also went through the red light, but only to escape this psycho). I got to the point where the traffic was clear, and realising that he was going to ram me and I had no prospect of escape, bunny-hopped onto a pavement and stood next to a wall, thinking that he won't ram me if he is going to end up ramming a wall. The driver started swearing and shouting at me, accusing me of hitting his car, then punched me in the head. Luckily I was wearing a helmet (let's not start the helmet debate!). He broke my glasses, then as I tried to phone the police, snatched my phone and threw it across the road. 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.
My wider point is that, at the time of my swearing incident, the driver from the assault had not been arrested. The police knew that I had recently been victim of an unprovoked assault by a driver, yet refused to consider that as part of my story, and why I was more than a little nervous at being driven at on purpose by someone filming the whole incident on their phone. Indeed, they were actively dismissive of a very similar case, just a few weeks earlier, when someone else had deliberately driven at me, and then punched me, in a similarly unprovoked incident..
I am absolutely disgusted at the police. Frankly, I don't trust them. I think that they are institutionally anti-cyclist. In other words, people cycling on two wheels cannot expect the same protection and application of the law as people on foot, in cars, on trains or any other form of transport. I believe this is hard-baked into the culture of road traffic policing - as reflected by how no specialist road traffic officers I have dealt with actually cycle, and the deeply prejudiced attitudes on show.
If you cycle, you cannot trust the police. They are your enemy, not your friend.
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
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...
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?
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.
Can you elaborate on "emails" - have you explicitly raised an insurance case with them? Im surprised you are leaving something so crucial to emails when you can call them.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycling-legal-advice
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.
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.
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
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.
Pages