# Update on NV55PVL



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

I made a new post as the other one well.....


*Update *
I went down to my local station today. All seemed good. I started talking with the officer and all seemed well. We talked about the footage and agreed that it showed the driver to be clearly on the phone texting. He then asked " what do you want from this" i had a line ready but baffled talking about telling him its not right blar blar. What i should have said is a warning which is what i meant. He then said "i dont know what you idea of the police is but we dont go round prosecuting every person". "When i see people with their phone i don't always give out a ticket... i will talk to them about the dangers." I said "i understand". He continued as said" When i give them a talking to they leave thinking im a good guy hes alright, rather than that bastard just give me a ticket". He tried to make a point that this was better. I just sat there thinking, these people are going to leave thinking oh this guys a nice guy. Hes also a push over and if i do it again so what, hes just going to talk to me.
I was there sitting thinking what i expect from the police is to uphold law and order.

However i didnt say this becuase


This is where it all goes downhill
He said that " since this was reported by a member of the public it will be very unlikely that it will lead to prosecution" "Even with the video evidence to support you it will still be as unlikely as it was reported by a *MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. *
Then we went off the phone user onto me. He then give me a lecture about me having a video camera and how this could antagonize people. I felt like i had fell victim to my own reporting.
I said i was aware of this but he still went on and on and on. I didnt come for a leacture. What really got me was his comment.
"Leave the policing to the police"! In no way am i policing, why do you think i reported it to you. That really annoyed me.

What really pissed me off was what came next!!

My age was also brought into question. The fact i was rather young somehow diminished the value of what i was saying. He came out with a cracking line of "i have more experience than you have been alive"


He stated "last night there were 2 officer to portal the area from this station yesterday because we dont have many officers". He then went on to state " with these two officers what if there was a house being broken into round the corner" "Only 2 officers". "We should we be... becuase im talking to you about a moblie phone and there is a house being broken into". I said "at the house" He then said "im just trying to create context" I felt like saying no mate you're just saying me being here is a *BIG farkING WASTE OF MY TIME*! I felt that i was at fault for reporting this person. Rather than the inefficiency of reporting things like this. Very victimizing!
I left with the impression that they don't care and the fact im a member of the public discredits what i say.
The FACT is here the police dont have anything like roadsafe so its impossible to report anything without an officer seeing you in person, which is ridiculous!
What will happen is that the job will be delegated to the bigger station only a few minutes away. So the comment was unneeded.

It was agreed that they would speak to the driver and that he would be ADVISED, not warned ADVISED not to use his little phone while driving.
However i would not find out about it because of the DATA protection act which i know is bullshit as the last two times i reported things more serious than this i got a update of what happened the next day!

Overall i kept a smile on my face and not expressing my view and feelings.

Well after all, the driver is going to get advise.

Although i left feeling i was the one in the wrong and that drivers on their phone were not bound by law!

Edit: The officer i talked to was not even the person that i was sent to talk to, he got caught up. So it could have be some desk clerk for all i know.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

I sympathise with the officer. In an ideal world, the police would have the resources to deal with any breach of the law. Unfortunately, in these austere times, they can't.

You seem to contact the police on a fairly regular basis to report minor motoring offences. I can see why he has advised you to knock it on the head and leave it to the experts.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I sympathise with the officer. In an ideal world, the police would have the resources to deal with any breach of the law. Unfortunately, in these austere times, they can't.
> 
> You seem to contact the police on a fairly regular basis to report minor motoring offences. I can see why he has advised you to knock it on the head and leave it to the experts.


last time i reported to the police was around 7 months ago....
What would happen and did in the past, the case would be passed onto the large station down the road.
I dont report stuff as the process is so inefficient... no road safe or anything like that.... you have to see an officer and i simply dont bother as i dont have the time let alone the police, but i though this was warrant for my time.

Edit: Last time i reported something, the police issued a section 59 warning within a few hours, so i don't just reported any little thing. Again that was 7months ago. In the past year of cycling i have reported 3 things to the police including this one! 2 both got section 59 warnings. Kinda just goes to show the minor motoring offences i report to the police.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> last time i reported to the police was around 7 months ago....


 
Two visits to the police in 7 months. What restraint you have. I've only contacted the police once in my life and I'm 33 years old. Mind, that was to report a serious crime, not to whine on about someone driving around Tynemouth with sub-optimal tyre pressures.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jan 2013)

Honestly I would ditch the camera for a month, or more. Go back to enjoying riding rather than being a crusader against motoring offences.

Have you always cycled with a camera?


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

LOCO said:


> Honestly I would ditch the camera for a month, or more. Go back to enjoying riding rather than being a crusader against motoring offences.
> 
> Have you always cycled with a camera?


nope spent 7 years cycling without one, until a driver nearly hit with with his car at 40mph and stated it was my fault for being a cyclist.

Edit: It was head on as he was going too fast for the corner


----------



## jarlrmai (6 Jan 2013)

London get's Roadsafe, we get this.


----------



## steve52 (6 Jan 2013)

sort of related, last year at 11.45 a drunken woman with a young child about 3 ish in a pushchair wallks down our road screaming incoherently at the child and neighbours, whil bouncing the pushchair of walls,i rang999 as i thought the child was in danger of being hurt, but couldent get past an operater who could only stick to his script by repetedly ask what is she saying exaclty? i got close enouth to be threatend and screamed at so the opperated could hear her, he then asked if i could spell what she was saying, the numpty. just makes me give up


----------



## rich p (6 Jan 2013)




----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> "Leave the policing to the police"! In no way am i policing, why do you think i reported it to you. That really annoyed me.


So what do you 'think' you are doing?



Cycling Dan said:


> nope spent 7 years cycling without one, until a driver *nearly* hit with with his car at 40mph and stated it was my fault for being a cyclist.


So there was no accident, no-one got hurt, nothing actually happened, only thing that happened was you guessed the speed of a car & got upset.

Alan...


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> So what do you 'think' you are doing?
> 
> 
> So there was no accident, no-one got hurt, nothing actually happened, only thing that happened was you guessed the speed of a car & got upset.
> ...


nope car missed me just,come 3/4 into my lane in doing so .... driver got out and shouted it was my fault because i was a cyclist.
I have done the turn at 30mph so i am assuming to underturn by so much at least a extra 10mph
But after all"* there was no accident, no-one got hurt, nothing actually happened, only thing that happened was you guessed the speed of a car & got upse*t."

So there driving was in perfect standard and they should actually become a instructor as its was just so perfect, why not make him a road policing officer since thats the best way to drive.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> nope car missed me


So there was no accident, no-one got hurt, nothing actually happened, only thing that happened was you guessed the speed of a car & got upset.

Alan...


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> So there was no accident, no-one got hurt, nothing actually happened, only thing that happened was you guessed the speed of a car & got upset.
> 
> Alan...


 
How about the whole message, not just the first four words that supports you.
Very poor auguring skills


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Although one good point was made and one i will stick to.

Dont say anything, just stare!

It removes the defense that i instigated any following incident.


----------



## Pale Rider (6 Jan 2013)

Dan,

Coppers hate being told what to do, so you need to use some reverse psychology.

Next time you have a film, take it in and say: "It can't be right to prosecute someone just for using a phone."

To which the copper will reply: "We will be the judge of that, son."


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I sympathise with the officer. In an ideal world, the police would have the resources to deal with any breach of the law. Unfortunately, in these austere times, they can't.
> 
> You seem to contact the police on a fairly regular basis to report minor motoring offences. I can see why he has advised you to knock it on the head and leave it to the experts.


 
I can sympathise with the police, but if they dont have the resources to handle it then they should just say that instead of belittling the person reporting the crime. We wont be pursuing this due to resources and its the station's policy not to do x y and z.

Police officer thinks giving a warning is better so they think he is a nice guy? What a joke. I hate watching police camera action stuff when they keep calling the idiots 'mate'. Either Sir Ma'm or 'Get your ass on the floor before I pava you in the face' are appropriate ways to talk to the public imo 

I do agree though that you probably dont want to be 'policing' it yourself i.e. by telling the guy to put it down. Could put yourself in a dangerous situation. Not worth it for that kind of offence especially when you are vulnerable on your bike.

I don't see whats wrong with reporting offences if you can clearly identify the offender from the footage and its clear cut what they're doing. Then its up to the police to prioritize their actions. And if they're so hard done by for time they shouldn't be babbling a response like the one given above.


----------



## Slaav (6 Jan 2013)

I have just watched the clip and honestly cannot believe that you bothered going to report this to the Police. Sorry, just my position on it!

Whilst I agree that texting (especially) is potentially lethal while driving a car, it is not my job to start reporting people and if we were to all do it, it won't belong before we are all up before the beak for some offence or other


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Slaav said:


> I have just watched the clip and honestly cannot believe that you bothered going to report this to the Police. Sorry, just my position on it!
> 
> Whilst I agree that texting (especially) is potentially lethal while driving a car, it is not my job to start reporting people and if we were to all do it, it won't belong before we are all up before the beak for some offence or other


 
So who's job isit to report crimes? And who are you to determine when a crime is worthy to be reported to the police?

Bob next door is beating on his wife again, but its ok they love each other...

Neighbours smoking weed again, and people keep coming to their door, but kids will be kids!


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> I can sympathise with the police, but if they dont have the resources to handle it then they should just say that instead of belittling the person reporting the crime. We wont be pursuing this due to resources and its the station's policy not to do x y and z.
> 
> Police officer thinks giving a warning is better so they think he is a nice guy? What a joke. I hate watching police camera action stuff when they keep calling the idiots 'mate'. Either Sir Ma'm or 'Get your ass on the floor before I pava you in the face' are appropriate ways to talk to the public imo
> 
> ...


Its not a warning letter he is giving or even the people he caught. its words of advise! 
Simply a talk to.. Thats it.. to my understanding nothing on record but coppercyclists would have to confirm that.


----------



## veloevol (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> ... no road safe or anything like that.... you have to see an officer and i simply dont bother as i dont have the time let alone the police, but i though this was warrant for my time.


 
So you're a busy lad but what made this incident warrant your time? IMHO taking a video like this, where you were not directly effected, directly to the police and expecting action is rather presumptive. It's wasting police time and your own in reporting it. This type of incident belongs on the web with the company notified, if you feel compelled.


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Its not a warning letter he is giving or even the people he caught. its words of advise!
> Simply a talk to.. Thats it.. to my understanding nothing on record but coppercyclists would have to confirm that.


 
Ah that's my bad wording.


----------



## Slaav (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> So who's job isit to report crimes? And who are you to determine when a crime is worthy to be reported to the police?
> 
> Bob next door is beating on his wife again, but its ok they love each other...
> 
> Neighbours smoking weed again, and people keep coming to their door, but kids will be kids!


 
I think I should probably have expanded on my reasoning somewhat!

Man beating up a wife/girlfriend, I would step in and/or report it.

Seeing someone smoking a joint - video it and report it - NO CHANCE IN THIS WORLD.

Drug Den next door, would most likely report it as it would be one hell of a nuisance after a short while etc.

SOmeone overtaking me at 83mph on a motorway, would I report it? Would you???? (I know what I would do )

Videoing someone with their mobile in their hand and going to a Police station, NO CHANCE 9for me - some will disagree) espcially when I am paranoid about even checking who is callign me or call I have missed when driving; never answer it whilst not genuinely hands free. I do feel strongly about phone usage as I do see it all the time, but popping along and reporting it myself? (I don't wear my underpamts over my bib tights BTW) - It wouldn't even occur to me!

Oh well; don't expect you to agree with me but as you try to point out, where do you draw the line?


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

veloevol said:


> So you're a busy lad but what made this incident warrant your time? IMHO taking a video like this, where you were not directly effected, directly to the police and expecting action is rather presumptive. It's wasting police time and your own in reporting it. This type of incident belongs on the web with the company notified, if you feel compelled.


The fact it is stated in law it is illegal and i hate the fact people use phones and think its acceptable. 
Not like a close pass which is open to debate. 
The fact is i would assume there is overwhelming evidence to push for prosecution, however was unaware that due to me being a member of the public and the fact of age discrimination this diminishes the reporting.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Jan 2013)

Thing is, if there wasn't people like Cycling Dan to report these people then mobile phone use while driving would be much worse then it is now.

Would I report a driver using a mobile phone? No I wouldn't, I have other priorities and to be honest, I just can't be arsed. I am more a shouter & pointer at them.
But thank gawd for people like Dan, Gaz & Mikey who do have the gumption and drive to report these selfish peanuts. Someone needs to.


----------



## Tommy2 (6 Jan 2013)

What about burglary, should you not report that because nobody is getting hurt physically, should we all wait until somebody is laid over the bonnet of the car bleeding to death before you report him for dangerous driving?

If the police don't have enough staff then they are never going to catch anybody, you would think they would appreciate members of the public ( the very people they are here to protect) reporting crime so they don't have to rely on being in the right place at the right time.

I don't go reporting every little thing to the police but if this guy per chance catches something on film then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to report it and expect someone to get done as they would if caught by a police officer.

Maybe there should be some where you can email footage instead of going in to the station.


----------



## veloevol (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> The fact it is stated in law it is illegal and i hate the fact people use phones and think its acceptable.
> Not like a close pass which is open to debate.
> The fact is i would assume there is overwhelming evidence to push for prosecution, however was unaware that due to me being a member of the public and the fact of age discrimination this diminishes the reporting.


 
You do assume too much mate. You can't make the call, on the crime, the evidence or the punishment. It's not your job to do that, only if you are involved in an incident will your evidence be considered. You're a member of the public, who cycles with a camera for your own protection.

Where you need to concentrate your efforts is to help with changing people's perception of what's permissible on our roads.
Consider that perhaps you're in the culture change business not the law enforcement business.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Thing is, if there wasn't people like Cycling Dan to report these people then mobile phone use while driving would be much worse then it is now.


And your proof of this is?

Alan...


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Slaav said:


> I think I should probably have expanded on my reasoning somewhat!
> 
> Man beating up a wife/girlfriend, I would step in and/or report it.
> 
> ...


 
My point was, crimes like domestic violence, drug use probably aren't reported in some areas, because it's no big deal, not my problem, or dont like the police. And these are the areas most people dont want to live. Which is the problem when people dont report crimes (and police unable to do anything effectively about it).

TBH if I did video someone on their phone, I wouldn't spend my time going into the police station to report it (as I would expect nothing would be done), but I have respect for someone who takes their time to try and make a difference. So I'm a bit hypocritical really! The ideal, however, is that decent members of society should be reporting crimes if its reasonable the police could follow up on them. By deciding not to we are doing the police's (and/or CPA's) job which is to judge and prioritize whether action should be taken.

I would definitely upload it if the police had a decent online reporting mechanism where you could post up videos for them to review.

83mph etc - you cant prove it even with video footage so no point reporting as police unable to do anything.

To suggest we'd all be up before a beak if we reported more stuff is daft - its obvious the police barely have the time to follow up stuff as it is, but I expect you were saying this more tongue in cheek


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

veloevol said:


> You do assume too much mate. You can't make the call, on the crime, the evidence or the punishment. It's not your job to do that, only if you are involved in an incident will your evidence be considered. You're a member of the public, who cycles with a camera for your own protection.


 
Not reporting it is making the call and assuming too much. Reporting it lets the police make that call.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> How about the whole message, not just the first four words that supports you.
> Very poor arguing skills


Sorry I was using your own selective answering technique

Alan...
p.s. This is a debate not an argument for some people, have you seen the Adam Sandler film Anger Management


----------



## veloevol (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> Not reporting it is making the call and assuming too much. Reporting it lets the police make that call.


 
Reporting it via a mechanism like Roadsafe is different from catching offenders, attending a police station with little or no deference, providing evidence and inquiring as to the follow up.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Jan 2013)

You have said a lot of things that I agree with. Especially with the police saying that "There are few cyclists in the area and you are acting like a vigilante" "You cannot go around shouting at everyone" "I have seen a few of your other videos" "You are becoming well known in the area" "Watch yourself".

All of these things were said by the inspector who dealed with the taxi incident earlier. I was especially hurt by the "vigilante" comment. They also asked "Why do you have a camera?" Most of the time I feel like saying "Why shouldnt I?" but I end up saying "In the case of an accident where the vehicle drives off".

Whenever I leave the police station after reporting something, I always end up feeling like the target of bullying somehow. People seem to just 'have a go' after they have dealt with the situation and it seems very bizarre that there is a cyclist in the area with a camera on his head.

Things like this is the main reason why I dont report 'trivial' things to the police, they will just discard it and have a go at me.


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Jan 2013)

Tommy2 said:


> Maybe there should be some where you can email footage instead of going in to the station.


 
http://www.itv.com/youvebeenframed/


----------



## ianrauk (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> And your proof of this is?
> 
> Alan...


 

I have no proof. It's what I think.

But what I have seen with my own eyes is people putting the phone down when challenged. I would like to think that these people would think twice about picking it back up again afterwards. The more people who are challenged about it, the more people know it's an unreasonable way to behave. The more people who know it's unreasonable behavior, then less people would be inclined to use a phone whilst driving.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

The problem is not driving whilst using a mobile phone, which I don't do as it's against the law & my normal modus operandi is not to intentionally break the law whenever I can, it is the actual quality of driving by today's generation. I believe my level of driving is probably better than 70% of other drivers on the road, although I'm sure most people would also say exactly the same. I also believe I could drive & hold a sensible conversation on the phone better than the other 70% can drive without the conversation. The banning of the use of the mobile phone was a typical knee jerk reaction of a Government wanting the populist vote & nothing to do with safety.

Alan...


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

Dan, do your parents know what you get up to?


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> The problem is not driving whilst using a mobile phone, which I don't do as it's against the law & my normal modus operandi is not to intentionally break the law whenever I can, it is the actual quality of driving by today's generation. I believe my level of driving is probably better than 70% of other drivers on the road, although I'm sure most people would also say exactly the same. I also believe I could drive & hold a sensible conversation on the phone better than the other 70% can drive without the conversation. The banning of the use of the mobile phone was a typical knee jerk reaction of a Government wanting the populist vote & nothing to do with safety.
> 
> Alan...


oh dear, delete your account and leave! Im sure you can drive drunk aswell and still be better!


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Dan, do your parents know what you get up to?


Yes


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> The problem is not driving whilst using a mobile phone, which I don't do as it's against the law & my normal modus operandi is not to intentionally break the law whenever I can, it is the actual quality of driving by today's generation. I believe my level of driving is probably better than 70% of other drivers on the road, although I'm sure most people would also say exactly the same. I also believe I could drive & hold a sensible conversation on the phone better than the other 70% can drive without the conversation. The banning of the use of the mobile phone was a typical knee jerk reaction of a Government wanting the populist vote & nothing to do with safety.
> 
> Alan...



I don't agree with this. Numerous tests, involving some very good drivers, have shown that driving whilst using a mobile has a similar effect to driving whilst drunk. So God only knows what effect texting or surfing the net has.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

Back to the OP, if you do really feel that strongly about this type of incident, then maybe you should consider becoming a CSO, I have no concept of how it works, but I believe it can be done initially on a voluntary/part time basis 

Alan...


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> The problem is not driving whilst using a mobile phone, which I don't do as it's against the law & my normal modus operandi is not to intentionally break the law whenever I can, it is the actual quality of driving by today's generation. I believe my level of driving is probably better than 70% of other drivers on the road, although I'm sure most people would also say exactly the same.


 
Well at least you are right about one thing: http://blog.aaireland.ie/index.php/...0-of-drivers-rate-themselves-as-above-average (irish example easy to find but similar studies for Australia at least and think same done in UK).



> I also believe I could drive & hold a sensible conversation on the phone better than the other 70% can drive without the conversation. The banning of the use of the mobile phone was a typical knee jerk reaction of a Government wanting the populist vote & nothing to do with safety.
> 
> Alan...


 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm


----------



## black'n'yellow (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> So God only knows what effect texting or surfing the net has.


 
Surfing the net is fine - I'm currently doing 95mph down the M4 and didn't have any problems typing this. Fortunately, nobody filmed me either...


(I'm making this up, by the way)


----------



## CopperCyclist (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> I can sympathise with the police, but if they dont have the resources to handle it then they should just say that instead of belittling the person reporting the crime. We wont be pursuing this due to resources and its the station's policy not to do x y and z.



This. If they don't have the resources to deal with this, and don't want these sort of reports (which considering the current cuts I could understand) then they shouldn't have made Dan an appointment. He didn't waste anyone's time, the call handler did. They should have simply thanked Dan for his call and explained there and then it would be logged, but there aren't the resources to take it any further.

I disagree that it couldn't be taken further with video evidence from a member of public. I agree it takes some time to do so and may not be worthwhile unless you have an officer specifically tasked to do nothing but this.

This is yet another incident of government cuts biting us, and yet poor mismanagement by the police and a failure to explain the reasons WHY we can't do these things reflect badly on the police, rather than the governments crippling changes.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Jan 2013)

It's sad but I do understand the problems the police have with resources.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> Back to the OP, if you do really feel that strongly about this type of incident, then maybe you should consider becoming a CSO, I have no concept of how it works, but I believe it can be done initially on a voluntary/part time basis


I wanted to become a PCSO. I had a look on the NWP's website and researched it a little. Turns out that you need a fairly indepth knowledge of the Welsh language to become one in Wales. So that idea is out of the pot.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> nope spent 7 years cycling without one, until a driver nearly hit with with his car at 40mph and stated it was my fault for being a cyclist.
> 
> Edit: It was head on as he was going too fast for the corner


Try a month without it less stress more fun. Reality is I would be 99.9% sure had that car coming the other way hit you that under investigation they would have sussed he came round a bend on the wrong side, too fast, and hit you. 

TBH it was one of those thinsg and people say the strangest shoot when they are embarrassed.

The upside is everytime I see a ranting post backed up with a YT video I am even more convinced the downsides are greater than getting to watch all the times I am "nearly" killed..


----------



## subaqua (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I wanted to become a PCSO. I had a look on the NWP's website and researched it a little. Turns out that you need a fairly indepth knowledge of the Welsh language to become one in Wales. So that idea is out of the pot.


 unless you were born in england then promise to learn welsh honest cross my heart- then don't bother. its the same in teaching welsh born and don't speak welsh then shame on you and however good you might be its just tough tooty


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

I think i should make one thing crystal clear. The end result i can live with, if its down to X Y Z only advise can been given out im fine with that. Its a result! Least with the talking to the driver knows if hes caught something will happen!

What I am not impressed with and nor will tolerate is the service which i was provided with from the officer who interviewed me.
The officer seemed to transfer, project and externalise a lot of his 'work stress' onto me. Also the fact that my age was brought into question, that somehow because of that i could be belittled into thinking that i am wrong to report this.
In the end the interview left me thinking i was the one in trouble and personally responsible that if anything was to happen, like a house being broke into i felt like i was made personally responsible because i made a valid reporting. I was left thinking i was the one in the wrong and i am to blaim for what has happened. Also a clear impression that was left on me is that the use of a mobile phone while driving is acceptable which is not what i would expect.In turn these people can act outside the law. This is not what i would expect from a officer in are police force. Even if there was nothing they could do, i would not expect and do not expect the be treated like i am the one who should be blaimed for what the police force suffers from. Again i was left feeling like the bad guy though reporting, which was a good think i was personally responsible that anything that could happen was down to me!


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> What I am not impressed with and nor will tolerate is the service which i was provided with from the officer who interviewed me.
> The officer seemed to transfer, project and externalise a lot of his 'work stress' onto me. Also the fact that my age was brought into question, that somehow because of that i could be belittled into thinking that i am wrong to report this.
> In the end the interview left me thinking i was the one in trouble and personally responsible that if anything was to happen, like a house being broke into i felt like i was made personally responsible because i made a valid reporting. I was left thinking i was the one in the wrong and i am to blaim for what has happened. Also a clear impression that was left on me is that the use of a mobile phone while driving is acceptable which is not what i would expect.In turn these people can act outside the law. This is not what i would expect from a officer in are police force. Even if there was nothing they could do, i would not expect and do not expect the be treated like i am the one who should be blaimed for what the police force suffers from. Again i was left feeling like the bad guy though reporting, which was a good think i was personally responsible that anything that could happen was down to me!


 
If I'd have had a policeman give me a lecture when I was your age, I'd have damn well listened. A lot of young people nowadays know all about their rights and nothing about their responsibilities.

You've admitted to swearing at drivers and 'giving the finger', which is a public order offence. Should I go and report you?


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> If I'd have had a policeman give me a lecture when I was your age, I'd have damn well listened. A lot of young people nowadays know all about their rights and nothing about their responsibilities.
> 
> You've admitted to swearing at drivers and 'giving the finger', which is a public order offence. Should I go and report you?


 
You can try, expect little though, like the driver on the phone i have nothing to worry about.

While you're at it, you going to report cycle gaz and others who cycle with cameras aswell.... in gaz's last video he said fark in public.... The passersby could be offended. Best make a report just to make sure after all.

In addition if i swear at a driver they have done something to offend me so the public order act hits them too. Two birds one stone.

Edit:You talk about young people not knowing responsibility but it is you who fails to know.
I seen a person breaking the law. As a citizen of this country... it is my duty and responsibility report it.

Clearly people don't like the fact i reported this person.
Guess im a only one of the few who cares about laws made to protect people being broken.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Both parents are from England, grandparents the same. I class myself as English and dont care about Welsh born. I loath genuine Welsh people. They are rude, poor, and ill mannered.


Would you care to rephrase that?


Ok, You've had enough time and you are online, and still no apology or retraction?


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I loath genuine Welsh people. They are rude, poor, and ill mannered.


 
Reported for racism.


----------



## addictfreak (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Reported for racism.



Maybe an ill judged and silly comment. But I doubt if Matthew was intending to be racist.


----------



## subaqua (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Both parents are from England, grandparents the same. I class myself as English and dont care about Welsh born. I loath genuine Welsh people. They are rude, poor, and ill mannered.


 
you might care to rephrase that , am sure Rhys Ifans isn't poor, my wife and parents are not ill mannered or rude . there is only one ill mannered rude person i can see posting so far


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

addictfreak said:


> Maybe an ill judged and silly comment. But I doubt if Matthew was intending to be racist.


 
I'll let the admins be the judge of that. It is my responsibility as a citizen of Cycle Chat to report any breach of the rules.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I'll let the admins be the judge of that. It is my responsibility as a citizen of Cycle Chat to report any breach of the rules.


Good to see you're learning  However it was not racism as the welsh are not a race. In fact they are a nationality. If anything matt was stereotyping. Huge difference.


----------



## addictfreak (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I'll let the admins be the judge of that. It is my responsibility as a citizen of Cycle Chat to report any breach of the rules.



You will be filming people next!


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

subaqua said:


> you might care to rephrase that , am sure Rhys Ifans isn't poor, my wife and parents are not ill mannered or rude . there is only one ill mannered rude person i can see posting so far


 
Obvious xenophobia aside, I can see why Matthew might loath someone for being rude or ill-mannered, but to loathe someone for being poor? Dear me. It seems were told to 'be excellent to Matthew' but Matthew isn't very excellent to other people is he?


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

addictfreak said:


> You will be filming people next!


 
Look up your username on Ewe-tube!


----------



## addictfreak (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Look up your username on Ewe-tube!



I think you may have missed the joke, never mind.


----------



## BimblingBee (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Both parents are from England, grandparents the same. I class myself as English and dont care about Welsh born. I loath genuine Welsh people. They are rude, poor, and ill mannered.



Did you tell that to the Police Inspector from NWP? Maybe someone should? Fair play, you are an idiot.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

addictfreak said:


> I think you may have missed the joke, never mind.


 
I could say the same to you.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

BimblingBee said:


> Did you tell that to the Police Inspector from NWP? Maybe someone should? Fair play, you are an idiot.


 
Was the driver of the taxi Welsh? If so...


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Was the driver of the taxi Welsh? If so...


Try and keep a hold of your self.

You know fair well that was not what the issue was about.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

2239622 said:


> Delusional bollocks.


Don't hold back say what you even if you clearly have no idea

Alan...


----------



## Kins (6 Jan 2013)

Ooooh Welsh bashing! Generalisations about races are just pants mate. There are as many rude, ignorant people in England percentage wise as Wales.

bot : TBH your reporting this incident to the Police seems a trivial matter, and whilst illegal, doesn't warrant the time and effort you put into it or the time and effort of a police officer dealing with it.

As for other videos, you don't need to hit something to be a dangerous driver either on a bike or in a car. Crossing the meridian for any reason should be judged for safety by any type of vehicle, but the amount you see it these days is pretty shocking, mostly due to lack of concentration.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

Getting back to the OP.

In all your time cycling and recording your rides, has a cyclist ever broken the law, say went through a red light? Did you feel the need to report them? Or it a motorists only because one nearly hit you?


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> Getting back to the OP.
> 
> In all your time cycling and recording your rides, has a cyclist ever broken the law, say went through a red light? Did you feel the need to report them? Or it a motorists only because one nearly hit you?


 
Would a video of a cyclist riding through a red light with no identification actually be usable by the police to track down and prosecute someone? Think about it a second...


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Jan 2013)

My comment was out of order. I mustnt have been thinking straight. I apologise to whome I have offended.

I am very sorry for what I have said. I wouldnt say that I was being racist, more generalist. They are my truthful opinions and I understand that it was inappropriate to post such things.


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> My comment was out of order. I mustnt have been thinking straight. I apologise to whome I have offended.
> 
> I am very sorry for what I have said. I wouldnt say that I was being racist, more generalist. They are my truthful opinions and I understand that it was inappropriate to post such things.


 
You probably want to reflect on your opinions then, Tom Jones is definitely not poor.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> My comment was out of order. I mustnt have been thinking straight. I apologise to whome I have offended.
> 
> I am very sorry for what I have said. I wouldnt say that I was being racist, more generalist. They are my truthful opinions and I understand that it was inappropriate to post such things.


And my truthful opinion is that you are an immature little boy, who is "not a racist, but..." You had a chance to aplogise, to show that you were wrong and knew that you were wrong; instead you decided to pay lip service to an apology whilst defending yourself by hiding behind " truthful opinion" . Someone please let me know if this infant, ever, decides to become a man and issue a real apology?


----------



## BimblingBee (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I am very sorry for what I have said. I wouldnt say that I was being racist, more generalist. They are my truthful opinions and I understand that it was inappropriate to post such things.


 
So you think Welsh people are rude, poor and ill mannered and you are sorry for publishing that opinion in a public forum.

That is not an apology.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> Would a video of a cyclist riding through a red light with no identification actually be usable by the police to track down and prosecute someone? Think about it a second...


 
Maybe not but its still illegal, if your going round reporting people you have to apply the same process to motorist and cyclist or your being predijuce in what "crimes" you are reporting to suit his own purpose.


----------



## J.Primus (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> Maybe not but its still illegal, if your going round reporting people you have to apply the same process to motorist and cyclist or your being predijuce in what "crimes" you are reporting to suit his own purpose.



Why stop at road users. Surely you could film all the time in case someone breaks a law near you. I walked past someone smoking a joint today on the way to the shop. I wonder if anyone here would have tried to shop him...

Just out of curiousity are you over 18 Dan?


----------



## gaz (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> Maybe not but its still illegal, if your going round reporting people you have to apply the same process to motorist and cyclist or your being predijuce in what "crimes" you are reporting to suit his own purpose.


Which one poses more danger?


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jan 2013)

hmmm I am quite glad that the internet, text messaging, Facebook, Twitter and MMS messaging was not aorund when I t'was a lad, pretty sure I would have got myself in to serious bovver, lol


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> Which one poses more danger?


 
aces is right, we should be reporting crimes if we see them regardless of who commits them. Practically though its of no use to anyone if theres an unrealistic chance of identifying offender or proving that they have committed the offence (this should also be up to the police to decide . It's not for us to judge which is more dangerous, more illegal, or what action to take, thats for the police, the courts and the government to decide.

On a realistic note most people are too lazy and self centered to go about reporting every crime, and also prejudiced as aces says (I'm no different!) They also think that police cant/wont deal with it so dont bother, or that reporting *a crime* with decent evidence is wasting the police's time (as half the posters on this thread seem to think). Blimey what is the police's job again?

I'm sure police statistics will say most crimes are reported by the victim.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> Which one poses more danger?


 
Should that matter? In the eyes of the law? But a cyclist going through a red could equally be as dangerous as a mobile phone use


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> aces is right, we should be reporting crimes if we see them regardless of who commits them. Practically though its of no use to anyone if theres an unrealistic chance of identifying offender or proving that they have committed the offence. It's not for us to judge which is more dangerous, more illegal, or what action to take, thats for the police, the courts and the government to decide.
> 
> On a realistic note most people are too lazy and self centered to go about reporting every crime, and also prejudiced as aces says. I'm no different. I'm sure police statistics will say most crimes are reported by the victim.


 

In reality as you say it no use reporting every tiny little crime, no police would ever leave his desk from being swamped.

That's why the majority of people let the police do the policing of the laws.


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> In reality as you say it no use reporting every tiny little crime, no police would ever leave his desk from being swamped.
> 
> That's why the majority of people let the police do the policing of the laws.


 
Well that's not really the conclusion I was going for! If we leave policing to the police no-one rings 999 when they see someone being mugged.

Reporting is not Policing. I'm sure some police officers will attest they cant deal with problems if things aren't reported which can be frustrating at times.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Jan 2013)

BimblingBee said:


> That is not an apology.


I APOLOGISE.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> Getting back to the OP.
> 
> In all your time cycling and recording your rides, has a cyclist ever broken the law, say went through a red light? Did you feel the need to report them? Or it a motorists only because one nearly hit you?


In the whole time of cycling, i have went through one red light.... However i did it in threat of my safety. A car was tailgating on my rear wheel around 1foot, I was doing 20mph and the light was half way through yellow and i felt the fact the light was around 4 meters in front of me i didnt have enough room to stop let alone hope the guy at my rear stopped and didnt hit me, the light went red around the time my body past the white line, which i dont even think is a rlj since my front wheel was over. Non the less. Also hope to you suppose i report a cyclist, grab him get his address and name and then report him.... Have a think mate.

To my knowledge i have not broken away road law. Its very easy to stick by rules as long as you know them.


----------



## gaz (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> But a cyclist going through a red could equally be as dangerous as a mobile phone use


99.9% of the times, no.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

Matt, you've apologised for publishing those views, yet in the same breath admitted that they are your truthful opinions of Welsh people. So what are you apologising for exactly?


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> In the whole time of cycling, i have went through one red light.... However i did it in threat of my safety. A car was tailgating on my rear wheel around 1foot, I was doing 20mph and the light was half way through yellow and i felt the fact the light was around 4 meters in front of me i didnt have enough room to stop let alone hope the guy at my rear stopped and didnt hit me, the light went red around the time my body past the white line, which i dont even think is a rlj since my front wheel was over. Non the less. Also hope to you suppose i report a cyclist, grab him get his address and name and then report him.... Have a think mate.


 
Why not make citizens arrest while your at it?


----------



## gaz (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> In reality as you say it no use reporting every tiny little crime, no police would ever leave his desk from being swamped.
> 
> That's why the majority of people let the police do the policing of the laws.


They seem to be doing a good job of policing the roads don't they?


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> Why not make citizens arrest while your at it?


Under what grounds!


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> They seem to be doing a good job of policing the roads don't they?


 
A reasonable job, yes. The UK's accident statistics compare well with those of other countries. But they could do better, if given the resources. But they're not going to get those extra resources any time soon, so perhaps it's best not to waste their time.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> They seem to be doing a good job of policing the roads don't they?


People still break the law and people still die, depends what you class a good.
I personally would say yes but then statistics could prove me wrong.
Alot of crimes go unreported like most rapes. No one tells the police they dont know.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Under what grounds!


Was a joke, could do with a sarcasim smily


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> A reasonable job, yes. The UK's accident statistics compare well with those of other countries. But they could do better, if given the resources. But they're not going to get those extra resources any time soon, so perhaps it's best not to waste their time.


i can tell that's in reference to me, calling up over what bread to buy is wasting police time, reporting crimes no matter how small is not. A crime is a crime at the end of the day, as people say its up to the police how to approach and list its urgency! If not one reports the police dont know. As i said before a majority of rapes go unreported and the police cant do anything about it as they dont know. Unless rapes a minor crime? Is reporting wasting police time? Alot go down to he said she said.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Matt, you've apologised for publishing those views, yet in the same breath admitted that they are your truthful opinions of Welsh people. So what are you apologising for exactly?


Being caughtout by voicing them?


----------



## classic33 (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Under what grounds!


 You saw a crime being committed. Downside to that is you then have to take them to the police, not the police out to take them from you.



Matthew_T said:


> I APOLOGISE.


 As others have been saying, that is not an apology given what you said.

Cycling Dan, have been in a similar situation as you gave earlier, where you were left feeling as though you were in the wrong. I'd say that the only difference is I was following up on what was at the time an active case. He was the "officer in charge of the investigation". Followed being hit by a car, drunk driver thought I was actually a bus, so it was safe to pull out.


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> A reasonable job, yes. The UK's accident statistics compare well with those of other countries. But they could do better, if given the resources. But they're not going to get those extra resources any time soon, so perhaps it's best not to waste their time.


 
Accident statistics dont prove the police are doing a good job. I'd expect insurance costs to be a better correlation!


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> You saw a crime being committed. Downside to that is you then have to take them to the police, not the police out to take them from you.
> 
> 
> As others have been saying, that is not an apology given what you said.
> ...


that does not make sense in reference to arresting somone. Also i dont understand who i would arrest and what for.


----------



## aces_up1504 (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> i can tell that's in reference to me, calling up over what bread to buy is wasting police time, reporting crimes no matter how small is not. A crime is a crime at the end of the day, as people say its up to the police how to approach and list its urgency! If not one reports the police dont know. As i said before a majority of rapes go unreported and the police cant do anything about it as they dont know. Unless rapes a small crime?


 A 

So going by your a crime is a crime, have ever recorded a fellow cyclists doing anything illegal and did you report them, otherwise i would say your motives are preduijced


----------



## classic33 (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> that does not make sense in reference to arresting somone. Also i dont understand who i would arrest and what for.


 You said you saw someone break the law, that person should be the one you arrest & for the offence you say that they have committed.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> A
> 
> So going by your a crime is a crime, have ever recorded a fellow cyclists doing anything illegal and did you report them, otherwise i would say your motives are preduijced


The fact is i never see many cyclists... people do cycle ive seen them but going the other way. I don't have much interaction if any with other cyclists. The fact is reporting a cyclist jumping red lights would be a waste of police time unless an officer was there on seen, as there is nothing identifiable on the cyclist. i would quite literally be saying the person was on a bike and that's it... Great farking job Mr member of the public you narrowed it down to 13million possible people.
If i seen someone jump the lights and there was an officer, sure i would make it know to an officer if there was one near me.. maybe waiting at the light. i hope the prick gets a ticket. Im next to the prick jumping the lights and then every person near me thinks oh look another cycling dickhead going to jump lights and doing other cycling shoot..
If there is not an officer i cant report it but i sure as hell make my opinion clear. Although its never happened yet.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> You said you saw someone break the law, that person should be the one you arrest & for the offence you say that they have committed.


i didn't though ? If this was to the mobile phone guy, to my knowledge the its not an arrest-able offence, then if it is leads to another question... how the fark do i get him out his car? bash the window out with my hands and cling to his car as he tries to drive away?


----------



## classic33 (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> A
> 
> So going by your a crime is a crime, have ever recorded a fellow cyclists doing anything illegal and did you report them, otherwise i would say your motives are preduijced


 I'll answer yes to that. There is an idiot who takes great delight in flying across the road, often at speed with no regard for those using the road legally or the pavement which he mounts on the far side of the road. He got it wrong/misjudged it once & rode into a brick base built around a tree.


----------



## classic33 (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> i didn't though ? If this was to the mobile phone guy, to my knowledge the its not an arrest-able offence, then if it is leads to another question... how the f*** do i get him out his car? bash the window out with my hands and cling to his car as he tries to drive away?


 That would be upto you & you would have to choose what your actions were going to be fairly fast.


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> i didn't though ? If this was to the mobile phone guy, to my knowledge the its not an arrest-able offence, then if it is leads to another question... how the f*** do i get him out his car? bash the window out with my hands and cling to his car as he tries to drive away?


 
Clinging on to the bonnet with the windscreen wipers smacking you in the face!


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> Clinging on to the bonnet with the windscreen wipers smacking you in the face!


i didnt realise how funny that bit of imagery was until i read it back.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> Was a joke, could do with a sarcasim smily


----------



## gaz (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> A reasonable job, yes. The UK's accident statistics compare well with those of other countries. But they could do better, if given the resources. But they're not going to get those extra resources any time soon, so perhaps it's best not to waste their time.


I don't see anyone wasting police time.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> I don't see anyone wasting police time.


Nope he thinks im wasting police time, a few of them do.


----------



## HovR (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> If there is not an officer i cant report it but i sure as hell make my opinion clear. Like sonofthewind - *assaulting the cyclist, i will just do it verbally.*


 
Great plan, that can only go well!


----------



## snorri (6 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> To my knowledge i have not broken away road law. Its very easy to stick by rules as long as you know them.


 You do appear to have a rather casual attitude to white lines on the road


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

snorri said:


> You do appear to have a rather casual attitude to white lines on the road


unless its solid it can be crossed.(most of the time)
Plz elaborate so i can answer better and understand what your getting at, white lines rather ambiguous


----------



## Kins (6 Jan 2013)

Well if any snotty nose oik came along side my vehicle and started shouting at me, I would probably ignore what ever they had to say, no matter how valid it was. Road ragers, just flick the finger and carry on with what ever I was doing and blatantly ignore them. Tends to irritate them when they don't have an active audience.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> Well if any snotty nose oik came along side my vehicle and started shouting at me, I would probably ignore what ever they had to say, no matter how valid it was. Road ragers, just flick the finger and carry on with what ever I was doing and blatantly ignore them. Tends to irritate them when they don't have an active audience.


road ragers expect a reaction its what they feed on , like trolls and counter comments.


----------



## gambatte (6 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> You said you saw someone break the law, that person should be the one you arrest & for the offence you say that they have committed.


Is it an indictable offence is one that can be tried in a crown court, in front of a jury? Considering the starting point is that detention of another person is, on its own, unlawful.... Better to report and then let plod hopefully do his job.
My opinion is still as when my neighbours used to complain about gangs of kids, "If you don't report it, it hasn't happened" If it hasn't happened, how do plod know how to target it? If there's no report, how can plod justify putting any budget into that area.
Lazy jobsworths might try to dismiss it, but the paperworks in, the incidents recorded.


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

aces_up1504 said:


> A
> 
> So going by your a crime is a crime, have ever recorded a fellow cyclists doing anything illegal and did you report them, otherwise i would say your motives are preduijced


Actually, i do more than most here when seeing a cyclist break the rules, i upload them to Youtube.


----------



## gambatte (6 Jan 2013)

section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:
Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.​It's 'doable' but I reckon using a mobile.... not worth the risk. Report and leave.


----------



## Phaeton (6 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> I don't see anyone wasting police time.


Clearly a theme going on here, first we had Enid Blyton's Famous Five, then Mutant Ninja Turtles not we have BikerCam's keeping the world safe.

Alan...

Alan...


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> Clearly a theme going on here, first we had Enid Blyton's Famous Five, then Mutant Ninja Turtles not we have BikerCam's keeping the world safe.
> 
> Alan...
> 
> Alan...


Not keeping it safe, improving! Two different things! Make sure to know the difference.
Its not only cam cyclists its anyone who stands for whats right! The fact is change happens because of the few not the many.


----------



## Alun (6 Jan 2013)

gambatte said:


> section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974. A person "other than a constable" may arrest without a warrant anyone:
> Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence.​It's 'doable' but I reckon using a mobile.... not worth the risk. Report and leave.


Is driving whilst on the phone an "indictable offence"?


----------



## Cycling Dan (6 Jan 2013)

Alun said:


> Is driving whilst on the phone an "indictable offence"?


i dont think its on the list, normally its big things like theft, murder, rape and other things like that.
Yes there is a list.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Matt, you've apologised for publishing those views, yet in the same breath admitted that they are your truthful opinions of Welsh people. So what are you apologising for exactly?


I'm going away to hang myself.


----------



## Mugshot (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I'm going away to hang myself.


I'm afraid you already have.


----------



## BimblingBee (6 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I APOLOGISE.



Maybe less 'shouting' and more thinking.


----------



## campbellab (6 Jan 2013)

Phaeton said:


> Clearly a theme going on here, first we had Enid Blyton's Famous Five, then Mutant Ninja Turtles not we have BikerCam's keeping the world safe.
> 
> Alan...
> 
> Alan...


 
TBH the only one we can rely on is you to be better than 70% of the population and to save us from the governments ploy that mobile phone usage is safe on the road!


----------



## Hawk (7 Jan 2013)

Jeezo guys. All I wanted to do was ride a bike to uni, apparently I'm meant to be arresting people along the way now.

Whilst I've learned lots from Gaz/Mikey's helmet camera footage, I don't think I'd ride a bike if I also had to spend this long arguing over it.


----------



## HovR (7 Jan 2013)

Hawk said:


> Jeezo guys. All I wanted to do was ride a bike to uni, apparently I'm meant to be arresting people along the way now.


----------



## gambatte (7 Jan 2013)

Alun said:


> Is driving whilst on the phone an "indictable offence"?


I don't know. I wouldn't have thought so and because of that, I'd leave the whole arresting bit of the process to plod.


----------



## Phaeton (7 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> phone usage is safe on the road!


I'm surprised that you believe that

Alan...


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (7 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> Well at least you are right about one thing: http://blog.aaireland.ie/index.php/...0-of-drivers-rate-themselves-as-above-average (irish example easy to find but similar studies for Australia at least and think same done in UK).


"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt"
- Bertrand Russell


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

Alun said:


> Is driving whilst on the phone an "indictable offence"?


 
No.

Very few offences are indictable only - triable only in the crown court.

Even causing death by careless driving is 'either way' - triable either in magistrates or crown.


----------



## CopperCyclist (7 Jan 2013)

gaz said:


> They seem to be doing a good job of policing the roads don't they?



No where near as good as we used to. When I joined, and we had a traffic department in its own right at the station, had Cycling Dan taken his video to them, 95% of them would have said 'Great!', gone out and issued a ticket and told him to keep them coming.

Now, the traffic departments office is a storeroom, and the bobbies are gone. The spaces still marked up for "Traffic Cars Only" in our rear yard are a free for all. The focus on traffic policing as a whole seems very much reactive rather than proactive.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

Just seen it, and not very impressed with your Welsh post, Matthew. That was well out of order.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Further Update: NV55PVL

Person came round who was the same that interview me.
In turn i have been informed im acting vigilant and that im a danger to myself.
Alot of discussion as he came round to issue an offical warning!
I reported the driver on the phone to his employer. However this is not called harassment. Is this true?
He said that he could be easily arresting me today for harassment but he wasn't going too.
The person i reported has apparently made a harassment complaint against me since i have reported him to his employer and the police. This was made clear by the fact the officer said he could arrest me and told me.
He said video people and posting it on YouTube is illegal, which is clearly not.
I had in effect been told off and informed that this account will be logged on the police database.
I also brought up the fact, should not report things like this to the police. He said in effect no as its the polices job to police. He told me that was i was doing was self policing.
Also he made a comment about how cyclists should not be in the middle of the road.
What are your thoughts?


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Further Update: NV55PVL
> 
> Person came round who was the same that interview me.
> In turn i have been informed im acting vigilant and that im a danger to myself.
> ...


 
The copper is a know nothing idiot who should know better.


----------



## Mugshot (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Also he made a comment about how cyclists should not be in the middle of the road.


Middle of the road or middle of the lane?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Further Update: NV55PVL
> 
> Person came round who was the same that interview me.
> In turn i have been informed im acting vigilant and that im a danger to myself.
> ...


 
That doesn't seem acceptable to me. I'd pm Drago/CopperCyclist/Cubist and ask them for advice, but I think I'd want to make a complaint about that police officer's behaviour and training.

I don't know what you did exactly, but a simple report to employer and police surely can't be harrassment? His comments about riding in the middle of the road and videoing and uploading to YouTube are clearly wrong and ignorant.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Middle of the road or middle of the lane?


he said road.


----------



## addictfreak (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Further Update: NV55PVL
> 
> Person came round who was the same that interview me.
> In turn i have been informed im acting vigilant and that im a danger to myself.
> ...


 

Make a formal complaint to the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, and CC the new Police Commissioner if you are not happy.
Otherwise get rid of the camera and just ride your bike.


----------



## Mugshot (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> he said road.


Well if he meant road as in on the white lines as seen in the vid then I'd say it's not always advisable if he meant lane he's an idiot. As for the rest, he's an idiot.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> That doesn't seem acceptable to me. I'd pm Drago/CopperCyclist/Cubist and ask them for advice, but I think I'd want to make a complaint about that police officer's behaviour and training.
> 
> I don't know what you did exactly, but a simple report to employer and police surely can't be harrassment? His comments about riding in the middle of the road and videoing and uploading to YouTube are clearly wrong and ignorant.


what i have done eactly is what ive posted about, i have done nothing more or less.
he pick up on my langauge on some videos and said its a public disorder act and could arrest me also for that and said im a idiot to be filming it "how stupid are you" exact words.. 

He then talked about a video which i stated i went 47mph in a 30 zone. less this was taken at face value in fact it was a lie to roust up the youtube audience, i didnt go over 33... sorry for lieing. He said he could get people in that would work on the video and get my exact speed. Very hipocritical after he said made clear through belittling me that they don't have enough resources to handle stuff like phones but is willing to use the whole police force to prove i was speeding.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Jan 2013)

Regarding the visit from a copper a few posts above this one: I find this slightly troubling.

Somebody here is looking as though they take themselves and their headcam footage all slightly more seriously than much of the rest of the World does. It can hurt when this disparity of opinion becomes apparent, but Internet forums can help with the grieving process.

We have only your word for the chat with the visiting copper, but it sounds to me as if the purpose of the visit was to persuade a member of the public in a diplomatic way to kindly wind their neck in and stop having heart attacks about relatively minor events or non-events. If that is so, the visit may not have been successful, but not for want of trying I am sure.

As ever, I may be wrong.

Have you ever thought of getting a hobby? I'm told that all UK trains have unique identifying numbers that can be collected in a notebook.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

addictfreak said:


> Make a formal complaint to the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, and CC the new Police Commissioner if you are not happy.
> Otherwise get rid of the camera and just ride your bike.


 
Make a formal complaint. I dont want police officers who think that contacting employer and police about poor/illegal driving is harassment. Adding videos to youtube could be harassing, but as you dont target this specific indvidual but have a habit of showing poor driving then its not... 

I'd make a timeline of events and try to document clearly what the officer said - not on here keep it private. If you want to appeal to commissioner etc I would expect wording that you feel victimised for reporting a crime would fit well - and I'm pretty confident thats exactly how you are feeling.

I'd also not speak to the officer on your own again (not saying you need legal aid but have someone who can listen without taking part and potentially take notes). They can also help you understand if you are overreacting by giving a more impartial view.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> what i have done eactly is what ive posted about, i have done nothing more or less.
> he pick up on my langauge on some videos and said its a public disorder act and could arrest me also for that and said im a idiot to be filming it "how stupid are you" exact words..
> 
> He then talked about a video which i stated i went 47mph in a 30 zone. less this was taken at face value in fact it was a lie to roust up the youtube audience, i didnt go over 33... sorry for lieing. He said he could get people in that would work on the video and get my exact speed. Very hipocritical after he said made clear through belittling me that they don't have enough resources to handle stuff like phones but is willing to use the whole police force to prove i was speeding.


 
You could potentially check speeds by noting timings on video against a landmark and measuring distance between them. Depends on quality of video, you'd really need a road marking near to wheel in view. There's no speed limit for bikes - but could try and do you for another cycling offence.

Remove any incriminating evidence from your account (swearing etc) I doubt he's clever enough to have made a copy.


----------



## Mugshot (7 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> We have only your word for the chat with the visiting copper, but it sounds to me as if the purpose of the visit was to persuade a member of the public in a diplomatic way to kindly wind their neck in and stop having heart attacks about relatively minor events or non-events. If that is so, the visit may not have been successful, but not for want of trying I am sure.


I think I agree with your sentiments Boris, but I don't think Cycling Dans transcript sounds very diplomatic, as you have rightly pointed out it's the OPs version of events, but assuming they are accurate then if diplomatic was the intended sentiment I think the officer failed. Perhaps a friendly arm around the shoulder and a "Now listen son....." would have left Dan with a nice warm glow  (are coppers allowed to put an arm round the shoulders?)


----------



## BSRU (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Further Update: NV55PVL
> 
> Person came round who was the same that interview me.
> In turn i have been informed im acting vigilant and that im a danger to myself.
> ...


 
I have had a similar experience in the past, the officer in my case was obviously biased towards the driver and was not interested in anything I had to say. I would understood if the officer had just stated it was not serious enough to merit any more Police time instead of trying to blame me.
I think the main problem is complete lack of traffic officers with their experience/expertise to handle traffic cases.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jan 2013)

I watched that 47mph clip yesterday and thought 'blimey! He's got balls doing 47 in a built-up area!'


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> what i have done eactly is what ive posted about, i have done nothing more or less.
> he pick up on my langauge on some videos and said its a public disorder act and could arrest me also for that and said im a idiot to be filming it "how stupid are you" exact words..
> 
> He then talked about a video* which i stated i went 47mph in a 30 zone. less this was taken at face value in fact it was a lie to roust up the youtube audience, i didnt go over 33... sorry for lieing*. He said he could get people in that would work on the video and get my exact speed. Very hipocritical after he said made clear through belittling me that they don't have enough resources to handle stuff like phones but is willing to use the whole police force to prove i was speeding.


 
This might be the nutshell revelation we've been looking for.

We appear to be dealing here with somebody who posts footage online claiming they are travelling at 47mph in a 30mph zone.

This claim was made (in his own words) to boost a Youtube audience. The claimed true figure is now 33mph.

This is sad and unsettling in so many ways that further comment in superfluous... But when did that ever stop me?

Cycling dan, get a hobby. Not one involving sharp pencils.

Really.


----------



## Kins (7 Jan 2013)

The more you read, the more you wonder about Dan, and truth, and when the two shall meet.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

I would complain, in very temperate terms, about the officer.

What Dan did nowhere near amounts to harassment and coppers need to understand they cannot mislead the public about criminal offences - deliberately or otherwise.

I anticipate the complaint will be dealt via informal resolution and Dan will receive contact from a senior officer to tell him so.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (7 Jan 2013)

BSRU said:


> I
> I think the main problem is complete lack of traffic officers with their experience/expertise to handle traffic cases.


 
No, the main problem is naive people turning up at the Police station and expecting the police to do what they want them to do on their terms only. Remember that 500lb gorilla I said the media was, well the law is a 1,000 lb gorilla. If somone does a hit and run on your car, the police WILL nick you for your bald tyre. If you have a break in, the police will nick you for the gram of coke in your cupboard. Once you invlove the police or media you lose all control over the outcome .


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

If you do go the route of making a complaint, I would strongly suggest you get the wording looked at by people on here.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> If you do go the route of making a complaint, I would strongly suggest you get the wording looked at by people on here.


 
But I'd keep it and your actions private from now on. You have links from youtube to the forum. Just like the car driver making a complaint against you when he was in the wrong, dont expect the officer is any better.You probably want to chat it through with someone sensible that you know as well.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> If you do go the route of making a complaint, I would strongly suggest you get the wording looked at by people on here.


 
PC Snodgrass threatened to arrest me for harassment after I informed him of a driver using a mobile phone and told the driver's employer.

I think the actions of PC Snodgrass were inappropriate.

Please advise.

Dan.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No, the main problem is naive people turning up at the Police station and expecting the police to do what they want them to do on their terms only. Remember that 500lb gorilla I said the media was, well the law is a 1,000 lb gorilla. If somone does a hit and run on your car, the police WILL nick for a bald tyre. If you have a break in, the police will nick you for the gram of coke in your cupboard. Once you invlove the police or media you lose all control over the outcome .


 
Absolutely spot on.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jan 2013)

Dan, what did your parents think about you receiving a visit from the police? I really think you should discuss these matters with those closest to you (family, friends...etc) rather than on here, because quite frankly you're being egged-on by zealots.

FWIW I think the police officer was a little harsh with you, but if I were you I'd drop it.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

Egged on by zealots? That's a little disappointing from you, hip-priest, and rather below your usual good standards IMO.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

Touche!

Isn't this topic quite the most inspiring and joyful thing to have in the most depressing month of the year?


----------



## benb (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> ... the light went red around the time my body past the white line, which i dont even think is a rlj since my front wheel was over ...


 
The offence is if any part of your vehicle crosses the line when the light is red.

In your situation though I would probably have done the same with a tailgating driver so close behind.


----------



## Phaeton (7 Jan 2013)

Dan, I do not agree with you reporting the guy & I do think you have issues & need to grow up, but if our version of the events are correct I think the Police response was even worse. I would request a meeting with a senior Police officer & just talk the whole situation through.

Alan...


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jan 2013)

Beano1 said:


> Mr Pious speaks again! Call me a 'weasel' please, or is that a standard to low for you?



I do not understand. Is this a biblical reference?


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Touche!
> 
> Isn't this topic quite the most inspiring and joyful thing to have in the most depressing month of the year?



Quite. Shall we go back to describing the hypothetical funerals of each others' children in excessively graphic terms? You like that don't you?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

Well, I didn't like that particularly, but I guess my opinion of it was quite different to yours.


----------



## PK99 (7 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> You have said a lot of things that I agree with. Especially with the police saying that "There are few cyclists in the area and you are acting like a vigilante" "You cannot go around shouting at everyone" "I have seen a few of your other videos" "You are becoming well known in the area" "Watch yourself".
> 
> .


 

The same message you have been given here many times!

Listen to it and act on it!



> Whenever I leave the police station after reporting something, I always end up feeling like the target of bullying somehow.


 
Because Asperger's makes it difficult for you to appreciate that other people can have valid view that are different from yours?


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Jan 2013)

PK99 said:


> Because Asperger's makes it difficult for you to appreciate that other people can have valid view that are different from yours?


Thats probably it. TBH I forgot to mention to the officer that I was Autistic. I doubt that would have changed things much.

When he said "If he harasses you again then he will be getting locked up" i replied "I would be very surprised if he tried anything again, knowing the consequences". But there is a very likely chance that he will take some sort of revenge if he does ever see me again. And then it wont be me posting, but someone on my behalf.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Further Update: NV55PVL
> 
> Person came round who was the same that interview me.
> In turn i have been informed im acting vigilant and that im a danger to myself.
> ...



I would think that after the police told you to leave it and you then went to the persons employer is where you crossed the line into harassment. 
You don't have a right to do that unfortunately.
If I was you I'd concentrate on school and try and stop antagonising people before you get yourself into real trouble.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jan 2013)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> No, the main problem is naive people turning up at the Police station and expecting the police to do what they want them to do on their terms only. Remember that 500lb gorilla I said the media was, well the law is a 1,000 lb gorilla. If somone does a hit and run on your car, the police WILL nick you for your bald tyre. If you have a break in, the police will nick you for the gram of coke in your cupboard. Once you invlove the police or media you lose all control over the outcome .


I agree, last week I had a SMIDSY from a car with no tax and it turns out no insurance, reported the no tax to the DVLA but decided not to report the no insurance to the Police as they may want to know how I know about no insurance.
Also I think the naivety for most people is believing the Police are there to prevent crime and catch/help prosecute law breakers, unfortunately funds reduce/limit the Police's/CPS's ability to meet peoples expectations.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> I would think that after the police told you to leave it and you then went to the persons employer is where you crossed the line into harassment.
> You don't have a right to do that unfortunately.
> If I was you I'd concentrate on school and try and stop antagonising people before you get yourself into real trouble.


 
I dont think that was the order of events though. Incident -> Reported to Employer and Police. Even still reporting criminal driving to an employer when they're in an employer marked vehicle I wouldn't count as harassment.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> I dont think that was the order of events though. Incident -> Reported to Employer and Police. Even still reporting criminal driving to an employer when they're in an employer marked vehicle I wouldn't count as harassment.


 
But the police seem to in this case, and their opinion is the one that will get your collar felt no matter how in the right you think you are.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> But the police seem to in this case, and their opinion is the one that will get your collar felt no matter how in the right you think you are.


 
The particular police officer doesn't speak for the police on the whole, hence why I personally would follow it up with a complaint. We shouldn't be in a society where people get blamed and bad mouthed for reporting crimes, and theres plenty of precedent for informing employers of poor driving! I'm sure the police recommend it at times themselves.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> The particular police officer doesn't speak for the police on the whole, hence why I personally would follow it up with a complaint.


 If it makes him feel better then go for it, not that it will help if he's already got a reputation for wasting police time.

What's important is to drop the thing with this driver because if he keeps it up after this warning he will be in trouble. Not that anyone encouraging him will mind as it won't blow back on them.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> If it makes him feel better then go for it, not that it will help if he's already got a reputation for wasting police time.
> 
> What's important is to drop the thing with this driver because if he keeps it up after this warning he will be in trouble. Not that anyone encouraging him will mind as it won't blow back on them.


 
Oh definitely theres no need to continue anything with the driver, as far as I'm aware he's content that the police went and 'advised' the driver and isn't pursuing anything to do with that anymore. It'd definitely be foolish to do anything else.

The issue now is the response from the officer, which, as its been explained, is unacceptable.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (7 Jan 2013)

Dan, I would ignore the people who tell you to stop using a video camera. I am sure that for them it's different, but for me having the video camera running makes it easier to shrug off the bad driving most of the time because I know I can deal with it later.
However, my own policy (nowadays) regarding what I do with the videos afterwards is that I rarely post the video on YouTube unless:

I feel someone directly put my safety at risk, or
it shows something that I might have found useful for own learning if I saw it from someone else, or
it shows something nice and heart-warming, like a lovely ride out on a summer day, or a deer happily avoiding being squashed by a car.
I only report to the police if:

the driving was sufficiently bad to scare me, or
there is clear, deliberate bullying or aggression.
I'm afraid that someone using a mobile phone, who does not directly affect me, would not meet any of these criteria, though I might be tempted to submit them to Roadsafe if we had such a thing round here.
Regarding the response of the police officer, I think I would be inclined just to forget it. If the story is as I have understood it from your account, then he was certainly out of order, but is it really worth spending your time on and getting wound up about?


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

That's a good post, MrHappy.

I agree, I doubt I would do much about phone drivers if it weren't for Roadsafe or the driver weren't in a company vehicle. Roadsafe makes it easy to bring a consequence and some education to that driver, as does reporting it to the company.

I'd have to see more than just a driver on the phone to go through the nightmare time consuming effort that is reporting stuff in person at a police station.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jan 2013)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Regarding the response of the police officer, I think I would be inclined just to forget it. If the story is as I have understood it from your account, then he was certainly out of order, but is it really worth spending your time on and getting wound up about?


I agree with this, after my talking to by the disinterested officer I just drew a line under the incident and forgot about it(apart from recalling it earlier) .


----------



## davefb (7 Jan 2013)

In a way, I think 'well yeah, i mean, come on reporting a mobile phone?"

but on the other hand, if I saw some shoplifting , drink driver , saw an assault, should I bother?

after the comments of the police officer, I'm erred towards the "nah"... if an "officer" says it's all about them, then why do the police request "our" help all the time..


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> I would think that after the police told you to leave it and you then went to the persons employer is where you crossed the line into harassment.
> You don't have a right to do that unfortunately.
> If I was you I'd concentrate on school and try and stop antagonising people before you get yourself into real trouble.


I contacted both at the same time.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Well if he meant road as in on the white lines as seen in the vid then I'd say it's not always advisable if he meant lane he's an idiot. As for the rest, he's an idiot.


At the time this was made, we were talking about my cycling in general and he was saying from seeing other videos bla bla bla you shouldnt be in the middle of the road!


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Mugshot said:


> I think I agree with your sentiments Boris, but I don't think Cycling Dans transcript sounds very diplomatic, as you have rightly pointed out it's the OPs version of events, but assuming they are accurate then if diplomatic was the intended sentiment I think the officer failed. Perhaps a friendly arm around the shoulder and a "Now listen son....." would have left Dan with a nice warm glow  (are coppers allowed to put an arm round the shoulders?)


Very much as it was accounted for, my i was happen with the polices actions if this is what was possible, however i had emailed the insident to the company before the police. I emailed what had happened in short and the link of the video if they would like to see the footage, i then emailed the police since this was a criminal activity. I don't think this to be wrong. What i am not happy with is that i have been issued a formal warning for harassment which to my knowledge has been noted down on the police database.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I watched that 47mph clip yesterday and thought 'blimey! He's got balls doing 47 in a built-up area!'


i lied in the video for the purpose of youtube, it was more 33 mph at its highest speed. The speed was greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> If you do go the route of making a complaint, I would strongly suggest you get the wording looked at by people on here.


I im typing informally, as this is to my understanding a informal forum


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jan 2013)

Just FYI, the company is a one man operation. So if contacted the company to complain, it went straight to the lad in the video.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Dan, I would ignore the people who tell you to stop using a video camera. I am sure that for them it's different, but for me having the video camera running makes it easier to shrug off the bad driving most of the time because I know I can deal with it later.
> However, my own policy (nowadays) regarding what I do with the videos afterwards is that I rarely post the video on YouTube unless:
> 
> I feel someone directly put my safety at risk, or
> ...


 
Yes it would be worth my time since i got a formal harassment warning from the guy and this is on police record.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> What i am not happy with is that i have been issued a formal warning for harassment which to my knowledge has been noted down on the police database.


 
Nor would I be.

Sending a couple of emails as you describe is not harassment, even if some might call it busybodying.

I would complain on the basis the formal warning has been incorrectly issued.

The worst they can do is tell you to get stuffed.


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Yes it would be worth my time since i got a formal harassment warning from the guy and this is on police record.


You do understand that you need to have two seperate accounts of harassment to have a Harassment notice. Further harassment then means that you will be arrested.

Did the police count your reporting to the company as 1 or 2 counts of harassment?


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> You do understand that you need to have two seperate accounts of harassment to have a Harassment notice. Further harassment then means that you will be arrested.
> 
> Did the police count your reporting to the company as 1 or 2 counts of harassment?


 
Crazy that reporting a crime to the police is classed as harassment. Especially if police act on it!


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> You do understand that you need to have two seperate accounts of harassment to have a Harassment notice. Further harassment then means that you will be arrested.
> 
> Did the police count your reporting to the company as 1 or 2 counts of harassment?


He didnt say, he was very vague in the whole thing. Spent more time telling me off about reporting things to the police.
He in affect said dont report anything to the police as "Its not your place" "Let the police do the policing" 
I challenged him alot on just about everything wrong he said like filming needing peoples permissions and so on and so forth but always deflected the question.
In the end it was left at well your parents know. My dad supports me in this matter.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Yes it would be worth my time since i got a formal harassment warning from the guy and this is on police record.


 
Have I got this right ?

Erm, *You* have the formal warning ? If so, then it's about time you thought twice about your actions, or you will end up on the wrong side of the law.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

fossyant said:


> Have I got this right ?
> 
> Erm, *You* have the formal warning ? If so, then it's about time you thought twice about your actions, or you will end up on the wrong side of the law.


For reporting a driver who was breaking the law to the police and his employer yes.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> He didnt say, he was very vague in the whole thing. Spent more time telling me off about reporting things to the police.
> He in affect said dont report anything to the police as "Its not your place" "Let the police do the policing"
> I challenged him alot on just about everything wrong he said like filming needing peoples permissions and so on and so forth but always deflected the question.
> In the end it was left at well your parents know. My dad supports me in this matter.


 
You should definitely know where you stand, from the way you describe it he hasn't given you a formal warning and just 'advice' like he gave the other guy (sounds like a paper dodger to me!). I assume someone can tell you exactly what needs to occur for this to be official, or whether being informed verbally suffices.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> For reporting a driver who was breaking the law to the police and his employer yes.


 
Well time to get off your 'young' high horse and calm down, *and just enjoy your cycling.*


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

I forget to note that the officer said it was my fault that the driver could lose his job or his business. I made it clear to him with the words. Its not my fault he got caught, its his fault of what ever comes next because He was the one breaking the law.. Lets just say the officer was in no way happy with what i said.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> For reporting a driver who was breaking the law to the police and his employer yes.



He is self-employed.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> He didnt say, he was very vague in the whole thing. Spent more time telling me off about reporting things to the police.
> He in affect said dont report anything to the police as "Its not your place" "Let the police do the policing"
> I challenged him alot on just about everything wrong he said like filming needing peoples permissions and so on and so forth but always deflected the question.
> In the end it was left at well your parents know. My dad supports me in this matter.


 
This is the official advice on warnings.
https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty

You're allowed to film in public place but if you've got a warning for harrassing people and posting the footage on youtube you proabably want to pack it in.
You can be as technically right as you want but the world is not as black and white as you think, and once you're established as that nutter who films people and badgers the police about it then no-one will listen to you at all, no matter how right you think you are.

You say your Dad supports you, does he know the full extent of what your doing?


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> He is self-employed.


What he is, is a franchise owner... i reported him to the parent company.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> This is the official advice on warnings.
> https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty
> 
> You're allowed to film in public place but if you've got a warning for harrassing people and posting the footage on youtube you proabably want to pack it in.
> ...


He watches the videos and he knows to a full extent.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> I forget to note that the officer said it was my fault that the driver could lose his job or his business. I made it clear to him with the words. Its not my fault he got caught, its his fault of what ever comes next because He was the one breaking the law.. Lets just say the officer was in no way happy with what i said.


 
I'm sure he wasn't, what you've described is not a good thing. When I police officer is explaining to you how your heading towards a harrasment charge you should probably be listening and not trying to be right. The unfortunate truth is no-one in the real world really cares if you're right or not. They will care if you've got a conviction.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> This is the official advice on warnings.
> https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty


 
From the link:

"The police or Crown Prosecution Service can give you a caution (warning) or a penalty notice if you commit a minor crime"

This helps Dan because he has not committed a crime, minor or otherwise.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2013)

Teenagers who think they are right ? Now, where have I seen that before


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Im personally not going to take it any further regarding the driver or the officer. How the officer handled the situation is in no way the standerd that it has been handled in the past.

The officer has show that he was legally and theoretically unaware of the rules laws in some areas incident(mainly the fact of how the camera works). 
Also he has shown that he is either anti cyclist or that he does not know how to ride a bike safely.
(this was given by the i should not be in the middle of the road, we were talking about my cycling in general and no longer about the incident, this is why i believed to it have been a comment on my general cycling not the fact i came along side the car in the video.) 

Disappointed about how the officer handled the reporting, not the result for the driver which some seem to not get!


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> From the link:
> 
> "The police or Crown Prosecution Service can give you a caution (warning) or a penalty notice if you commit a minor crime"
> 
> This helps Dan because he has not committed a crime, minor or otherwise.


 
Apart from harrasment, which is a crime and is what he has been given a warning for.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> I'm sure he wasn't, what you've described is not a good thing. When I police officer is explaining to you how your heading towards a harrasment charge you should probably be listening and not trying to be right. The unfortunate truth is no-one in the real world really cares if you're right or not. They will care if you've got a conviction.


I can kinda remember the exact wording.

However what i do remember and clearly is that

This person can lose his job, or even just money, this is down to you reporting it to his company. This is harassment this is not your job to do.
Then as stated above i said my bit.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

fossyant said:


> Teenagers who think they are right ? Now, where have I seen that before


 


fossyant said:


> Teenagers who think they are right ? Now, where have I seen that before


So teenagers think they are right but never are. Now, where have I seen that before


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> I can kinda remember the exact wording.
> 
> However what i do remember and clearly is that
> 
> ...


 
And saying your bit is a good way to talk yourself from an informal warning to a formal one. I'm not trying to get at you it's just that that kind of attitude is going to get you into trouble in the future if you keep it up.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> So teenagers think they are right but never are. Now, where have I seen that before


 
It's just that when dealing with an adult policeman it doesn't matter if you are right or not. When dealing with your boss it doesn't matter if you are right or not. Hell even dealing with my wife it doesn't always matter if I'm right or not.
There is a time and a place to pick your battles and arguing with the police over filming people in their cars is not one of them.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> And saying your bit is a good way to talk yourself from an informal warning to a formal one. I'm not trying to get at you it's just that that kind of attitude is going to get you into trouble in the future if you keep it up.


I was talking to him formally and giving him the respect that an officer of the law deserves.
The fact i don't agree with him means i don't agree with him.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> So teenagers think they are right but never are. Now, where have I seen that before


 
Having to have the last word, where have I seen that before too ! This is why you've 'hissed off' the Police.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> It's just that when dealing with an adult policeman it doesn't matter if you are right or not. When dealing with your boss it doesn't matter if you are right or not. Hell even dealing with my wife it doesn't always matter if I'm right or not.
> There is a time and a place to pick your battles and arguing with the police over filming people in their cars is not one of them.


Its the fact my cycling as a whole was brought into question. The fact of my age limits what i say and that rather than spoken to like an adult. i was told off like a teacher would a primary school child.

I have learnt for this experience like i always do.

Dont say anything just stare.
Dont report anything to the police. If its serious stick with not reporting it and try and persuade your self to report it. if you can its serious enough if not dont report it.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

fossyant said:


> Having to have the last word, where have I seen that before too ! This is why you've 'hissed off' the Police.


 
In your own postings?


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

I had an inkling this type of thread was coming from the OP by the way, when the OP started posting more frequently on here a couple of months back.

Anyone else see it?


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Its the fact my cycling as a whole was brought into question. The fact of my age limits what i say and that rather than spoken to like an adult. i was told off like a teacher would a primary school child.


 
So? Someone called your cycling into question. Does it matter... not in the slightest. Just be polite and listen to the bit that stops the police turning up at your front door again and carry on.
Also people in authority will talk down to you occasionally. Suck it up and get used to it because it won't change when you're an adult for quite some time.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> I had an inkling this type of thread was coming from the OP by the way, when the OP started posting more frequently on here a couple of months back.
> 
> Anyone else see it?


i post all the time. Just half the time have nothing to say.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> So? Someone called your cycling into question. Does it matter... not in the slightest. Just be polite and listen to the bit that stops the police turning up at your front door again and carry on.
> Also people in authority will talk down to you occasionally. Suck it up and get used to it because it won't change when you're an adult for quite some time.


I agree.
I just learnt it the hard way.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Its the fact my cycling as a whole was brought into question. The fact of my age limits what i say and that rather than spoken to like an adult. i was told off like a teacher would a primary school child.
> 
> I have learnt for this experience like i always do.
> 
> ...


 
The stare. Pick an eye and stick to it. Wait till they start sweating.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

J.Primus said:


> Apart from harrasment, which is a crime and is what he has been given a warning for.


 
Harassment is a crime, but Dan has not committed it.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a02a

Quoting:

"Although harassment is not specifically defined it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contacts upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person."

A single email to the alleged victim - in the terms described by Dan - just does not cut it.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> i post all the time. Just half the time have nothing to say.


 
You started posting innocuous videos more frequently, and rather odd responses from "taxi firms" recently.


----------



## 4F (7 Jan 2013)

Whatever happened to just cycling and enjoying it.


----------



## campbellab (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> You started posting innocuous videos more frequently, and rather odd responses from "taxi firms" recently.


 
Quick start the conspiracy theories!


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Its the fact my cycling as a whole was brought into question. The fact of my age limits what i say and that rather than spoken to like an adult. i was told off like a teacher would a primary school child.
> 
> *I have learnt for this experience like i always do.*
> 
> ...


 
That is so arrogant. I'll put it down to youth.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> You started posting innocuous videos more frequently, and rather odd responses from "taxi firms" recently.


 i wouldn't agree innocuous but i placed time in places where it could be used more effectively elsewhere.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

4F said:


> Whatever happened to just cycling and enjoying it.


 
Don't be silly - we need to join the Jesus Cycling army.


----------



## Markymark (7 Jan 2013)

In life, choose your battles wisely.


----------



## fossyant (7 Jan 2013)

4F said:


> Whatever happened to just cycling and enjoying it.


 
Dunno mate, seems folk are forgetting about this ?


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> That is so arrogant. I'll put it down to youth.


How come?

Would you not agree with what i decided to stick by from the experience.


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Jan 2013)

fossyant said:


> Having to have the last word, where have I seen that before too ! This is why you've 'hissed off' the Police.


This is why even when I hear a police officer say something which I dont agree with, I keep my mouth shut and just agree with them. Because I know that with the click of the fingers I could be arrested.

If they said something like "filming is illegal" however, then I would stand up for myself.

I am beginning to learn that 'what is right' isnt always the right thing to do.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> i wouldn't agree innocuous but i placed time in places where it could be used more effectively elsewhere.


 
Say what?


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Say what?


You read correctly.
However i stand by the fact i should report mobile phone users. Its up to the police where they set its priority and what comes from it.
If no one reports nothing will be done


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> How come?
> 
> Would you not agree with what i decided to stick by from the experience.


 
You never *always* learn from experience. None of us do.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> You read correctly.
> However i stand by the fact i should report mobile phone users. Its up to the police where they set its priority and what comes from it.
> If no one reports nothing will be done


 
Makes no context in isolation.

How old are you?


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> You never *always* learn from experience. None of us do.


well in this case i feel i have. Think of the always more of a generalization.


----------



## snorri (7 Jan 2013)

4F said:


> Whatever happened to just cycling and enjoying it.


 I can see you are not a serious cyclist.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> well in this case i feel i have. Think of the always more of a generalization.


 
The fact you wrote it strongly suggests a sense of arrogance. How much of that is down to your age I don't know.


----------



## BSRU (7 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Don't be silly - we need to join the Jesus Cycling army.


I had the Jesus army try to recruit me once, despite me being an atheist. The deal breaker was they stated they were not allowed to have a TV or drink alcohol, what sort of religion is that .


----------



## 4F (7 Jan 2013)

snorri said:


> I can see you are not a serious cyclist.


 
Serious enough to never consider getting a head cam, some of these on the bars would be handy though


----------



## Kins (7 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> He didnt say, he was very vague in the whole thing. Spent more time telling me off about reporting things to the police.
> He in affect said dont report anything to the police as "Its not your place" "Let the police do the policing"
> I challenged him alot on just about everything wrong he said like filming needing peoples permissions and so on and so forth but always deflected the question.
> In the end it was left at well your parents know. My dad supports me in this matter.


 
Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it. Police gave you a formal harassment warning for that? Cobblers.



Pale Rider said:


> Harassment is a crime, but Dan has not committed it.
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a02a
> 
> ...


Exactly! If he _did _give you a warning it wouldn't have legs if investigated_. _I think if anything actually occurred he gave you warning about having a warning.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it. Police gave you a formal harassment warning for that? Cobblers.
> 
> 
> Exactly! If he _did _give you a warning it wouldn't have legs if investigated_. _I think if anything actually occurred he gave you warning about having a warning.


Looking at what copper cyclists has said and the actual legislation. 
I think it was just a scare tactic or was put across in a way i interpreted it wrong from what could happen to what has happened. 
It will most likely go down to advise given to both sides no offence committed.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it. Police gave you a formal harassment warning for that? Cobblers.
> 
> 
> Exactly! If he _did _give you a warning it wouldn't have legs if investigated_. _I think if anything actually occurred he gave you warning about having a warning.


 
That must be right, because to have the offence dealt with by a caution/formal warning, the offender must admit it, which Dan surely has not done.


----------



## J.Primus (7 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> Sorry, but I don't believe a word of it. Police gave you a formal harassment warning for that? Cobblers.
> 
> 
> Exactly! If he _did _give you a warning it wouldn't have legs if investigated_. _I think if anything actually occurred he gave you warning about having a warning.


 
It sounds like an unofficial "wind your neck in before you get into trouble" chat to me.


----------



## Cycling Dan (7 Jan 2013)

Final Update:
This morning the officer came round to my house unanounced.
I really dont know what happened to be frank now. I either got a warning or told that i could get one. Its all a mess , not made clear. Non the less to my understanding the driver is going to be talked to but thats it. Im fine with that. A huge hassle, would be better if the incident at hand was what was addressed. With doing something good im now in trouble as it was twisted against me. Ill not bother again. Just look stare and if they kill someone ,who cares right. The fact is where i went wrong was talking to the officer like he was my equal, this was not the case. The officer made comments which i knew where wrong and corrected him which he didn't like. So in turn being me i made it worse. Not to be repeated. Someone else can report them
I do respect the police and the people who work for the police alot, however in this case respect of the uniform was all i had.

The fact i came across this guy was a pure fluke, what i was actually looking for was these 2 cyclist police. The main reason was to talk with them as ive only seen them once in some years now. I had some general questions for them like how often they get out. In turn i lost them as i got stuck at a light and had to double back. Not going out and hunting for people like some fools seem to think.

Dan out!


----------



## Andrew_P (7 Jan 2013)

hmmm think 400bhp might be on to something the Taxi response was very odd, I made the assumption it was a mickey take from them, or just a placating response. Maybe it was the response that Dan wanted, so he wrote it!


----------



## classic33 (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> I don't know what you did exactly, but a simple report to employer and police surely can't be harrassment? His comments about riding in the middle of the road and videoing and uploading to YouTube are clearly wrong and ignorant.


 
*Offence of Harassment - Section 2*
The elements of the section 2 offences are:

a course of conduct; 
which amounts to harassment of another; 
which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another. 
The defendant ought to know if his course of conduct amounts to harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
Section 7 *defines a course of conduct as involving conduct on at least two occasions*. Harassment is not defined, but includes causing alarm or distress, and conduct is defined as including speech.
*Putting people in fear of violence: Section 4*
The elements of the section 4 offence are:

a course of conduct 
which causes another to fear that violence will be used against him 
which the defendant knows or ought to know will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him. 
The defendant ought to know that his course of conduct will cause another to *fear that violence* will be used against them if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.


----------



## classic33 (7 Jan 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I'm going away to hang myself.


 Height & weight please!


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> Section 7 *defines a course of conduct as involving conduct on at least two occasions*.


And the third occassion means prosecution. As my taxi driver friend has found out.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> *Offence of Harassment - Section 2*
> The elements of the section 2 offences are:
> 
> a course of conduct;
> ...


 

Thanks for confirming what I thought. I think there's no chance this is harrassment then, going by Dan's posts on this topic.


----------



## CopperCyclist (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> That doesn't seem acceptable to me. I'd pm Drago/CopperCyclist/Cubist and ask them for advice, but I think I'd want to make a complaint about that police officer's behaviour and training.
> 
> I don't know what you did exactly, but a simple report to employer and police surely can't be harrassment? His comments about riding in the middle of the road and videoing and uploading to YouTube are clearly wrong and ignorant.



He has done, I've given it. Haven't read the last five pages of this post prior to posting this, but the short version in my opinion is... officer knows nothing about cycling, and it's all hot air. He's had a complaint from Dan, a counter complaint from the driver, has decided the whole thing is a waste of his time, told them both off and closed the log as 'No offences, advice given'.

If I was Dan I wouldn't be happy, however theres so little likely to be gained from anything further I'd just Keep Calm and Carry On.


----------



## PaulSB (7 Jan 2013)

Not sure why I waded through all this. I ride my bike, never been abused by a driver, never had trouble with the police and, interestingly, never thought about wearing a camera. 

I'm sure there's a lesson in that.


----------



## CopperCyclist (7 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Thanks for confirming what I thought. I think there's no chance this is harrassment then, going by Dan's posts on this topic.



Ok caught up now.  There are two types of harassment, Section 2 and Section 4. Section 4 is with a fear of violence, Section 2 is without. Specific intent as such isn't necessary, you just have to do two more more courses of conduct which you know or OUGHT to know" could cause the other person to be harassed.

Dans clearly isn't Section 4, but is it Section 2? For what it's worth, my opinion is no, but I can see how the officer MIGHT try to argue it was...

Filming someone in a public place - not illegal. Putting them on YouTube highlighting them as a bad driver - not illegal. However, PERHAPS putting them on YouTube is a course of conduct that you OUGHT to know could cause them to feel harassed...

The reporting to police is absolutely, 100 percent NOT a course of conduct for obvious reasons.
The reporting to the business.... hmm... it's arguable? It'll make them feel harassed after all, and you OUGHT to know that.

As I said, the above views aren't mine, but I'm trying to play Devils Advocate to see where he could be coming from. My conclusion is that I can sort of see it... however the truth of the matter is that it's just not a case that's ever, ever going o go anywhere. There may be an argument, but it's so weak it's just not true.


Dan has NOT been given any formal police caution. You have to formally admit the offence for this, and have that recorded in a PACE compliant manner (police interview, written and signed transcript) and it simply hasn't happened. Officer is using scare tactics and finding a frightening way of saying 'Right, I've told him off, I've told you off, now bugger off as I can't be bothered with any more of this'.


----------



## Tynan (7 Jan 2013)

I've skimmed this thread

People on a cycle forum are telling someone reporting the use of a mobile phone in a car that they're being silly or in someway a wrong 'un?

I for one have been abused by drivers, punched by one, have had interaction with the police, and have at one time worn a camera

But I ride in London and you it seems in Lancashire

I'm sure there's a lesson in that


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Jan 2013)

PaulSB said:


> Not sure why I waded through all this. I ride my bike, never been abused by a driver, never had trouble with the police and, interestingly, never thought about wearing a camera.
> 
> I'm sure there's a lesson in that.


 
This is pretty much where I am. Camera? Schmamera!

In my limited dealings with the Police, I have always found them polite, respectful and professional. That's mostly in London and the Three Counties.

This includes being nabbed riding a full-size motorcycle at 16 and getting an IN10 and a BA10 (before points were invented). It also includes several speeding stops, a few break-ins where I was the victim and some horrid scene-of-accident stuff while I held hands as patients either slipped away or didn't after a 999 call.

If I could put two or more 'likes' on the above post, I would.

Live to Ride, Ride to Ongar, as I never say.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Jan 2013)

And them murders you done.


----------



## gaz (7 Jan 2013)

PaulSB said:


> Not sure why I waded through all this. I ride my bike, never been abused by a driver, never had trouble with the police and, interestingly, never thought about wearing a camera.
> 
> I'm sure there's a lesson in that.


----------



## Crankarm (8 Jan 2013)

CopperCyclist said:


> Ok caught up now.  There are two types of harassment, Section 2 and Section 4. Section 4 is with a fear of violence, Section 2 is without. Specific intent as such isn't necessary, you just have to do two more more courses of conduct which you know or OUGHT to know" could cause the other person to be harassed.
> 
> Dans clearly isn't Section 4, but is it Section 2? For what it's worth, my opinion is no, but I can see how the officer MIGHT try to argue it was...
> 
> ...


 

Ehhh? This episode of indifference to criminal activity displayed by the police and to matters of road safety which has been reported to them is disgraceful. Dan was public spirited enough to report some one who was committing an offence by using their mobile phone whilst driving their vehicle which has serious implications for road safety. He recorded it on camera which is even better. He is the 'good citizen'. Period. He has NOT committed any offence of harassment nor filmed illegally. The officer who has suggested this to him or that he could be arrested is an arse. The officer should be investigated for abusing his position by bullying a witness which is if I am correct misconduct in public office or better still attempting to pervert the course of justice. If any one has been harassed it is Dan by this vindictive bullying copper. What Dan should do now is make a complaint to the Chief Constable of the officer's faliure to properly investigate this matter, his dereliction of duty and bringing the police service into disrepute by being a lazy, ignorant and arrogant ***! At the very least Dan should have been thanked for reporting the matter but then the police aren't hot on civility or common courtesy. Some are no better than thugs and crims in unforms they are part of the problem not the solution.

If the Chief Contstable does nothing then make a complaint to the IPCC.


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Ehhh? This episode of indifference to criminal activity displayed by the police and to matters of road safety which has been reported to them is disgraceful. Dan was public spirited enough to report some one who was committing an offence by using their mobile phone whilst driving their vehicle which has serious implications for road safety. He recorded it on camera which is even better. He is the 'good citizen'. Period. He has NOT committed any offence of harassment nor filmed illegally. The officer who has suggested this to him or that he could be arrested is an arse. The officer should be investigated for abusing his position by bullying a witness which is if I am correct misconduct in public office or better still attempting to pervert the course of justice. If any one has been harassed it is Dan by this vindictive bullying copper. What Dan should do now is make a complaint to the Chief Constable of the officer's faliure to properly investigate this matter, his dereliction of duty and bringing the police service into disrepute by being a lazy, ignorant and arrogant ***! At the very least Dan should have been thanked for reporting the matter but then the police aren't hot on civility or common courtesy. Some are no better than thugs and crims in unforms they are part of the problem not the solution.
> 
> If the Chief Contstable does nothing then make a complaint to the IPCC.


 
I disagree with not one word you've said, and should Dan decide to go this route I wish him every luck.

:edit: (tired, hit complete too soon) I only suggest to move on as I doubt very much a complaint would go anywhere, and I wouldn't like to push the officer into the corner where he has to argue it is harassment and ends up having to crime and 'investigate' Dan to write it off. In the end I have no doubt it'd go nowhere, as its rubbish - but is it worth the hassle to Dan? If it is, then do it!

I'd love to be proved wrong though. Perhaps even an approach highlighting your point that civility or common courtesy wouldn't have gone amiss could work. Best of luck whatever you decide.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Jan 2013)

I reported a driver using a mobile phone to the same force as Dan a few years ago.

I got through to a road policing unit inspector and the conversation went something like:

"Hello, this is a non-urgent matter, but I've just seen something on the road which I'd like to run past you."

"Go on."

"A van driver was using his phone on the A1 near the Coal House roundabout at Gateshead.
"I wouldn't normally report that, but he also had a clipboard on the steering wheel and was writing on it with his other hand.
"Looked like he was steering with his elbows."

The inspector asked for a few more details and then sent two coppers to my house to take a statement.

I never heard any more after that, although they told me the van was registered to a company in Yorkshire and they would, at the very least, be having a word.

A better result than Dan's, partly because of the way I approached it, but also I think because the circumstances of the offence were more serious.

Users of the road - the stretch past the Angel of the North - will know there are lots of accidents there.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Ehhh? This episode of indifference to criminal activity displayed by the police and to matters of road safety which has been reported to them is disgraceful. Dan was public spirited enough to report some one who was committing an offence by using their mobile phone whilst driving their vehicle which has serious implications for road safety. He recorded it on camera which is even better. He is the 'good citizen'. Period. He has NOT committed any offence of harassment nor filmed illegally. The officer who has suggested this to him or that he could be arrested is an arse. The officer should be investigated for abusing his position by bullying a witness which is if I am correct misconduct in public office or better still attempting to pervert the course of justice. If any one has been harassed it is Dan by this vindictive bullying copper. What Dan should do now is make a complaint to the Chief Constable of the officer's faliure to properly investigate this matter, his dereliction of duty and bringing the police service into disrepute by being a lazy, ignorant and arrogant ***! At the very least Dan should have been thanked for reporting the matter but then the police aren't hot on civility or common courtesy. Some are no better than thugs and crims in unforms they are part of the problem not the solution.
> 
> If the Chief Contstable does nothing then make a complaint to the IPCC.


Im happy with the end result on the drivers part, everything else certainly not. As advised by Newcastle cycling campaign as i kept them in the loop, if this did become about the officer they would close ranks very quick and little would come of it= wasted time.
Im just going to take the slap across the face. I have wasted enough time of my own and the officer wasted his own time himself.
I have better things to do than chase up some idiot in a uniform.
However has it affected what i do and say in the future regarding the police.... certainly.


----------



## Cyclopathic (8 Jan 2013)

I often see people phoning, texting, even eating a bag of chips and while it does irk me somewhat I wouldn't report it to the police. I might, if there were a dedicated phone line specifically for reporting motoring offences, consider making a call or possibly if a copper happened to be right there point it out to them but I would consider making a special trip or call a waste of my time and the police's. I'd have to be at the police station at least once a day and it would not be practical.
I suppose it might be an idea to set up a national database that at least logged all reports made by the public about drivers so that if it reached a certain number they were targeted for a good talking to about the standard of their driving but that would cost a lot of money and I can't see it happening.
I agree with a point made previously that if one feels very strongly about this then it might be better to make the report to the company on the side of the van. This of course is not much use for private vehicles or for one man companies who are the company as it were. Again this is not without pitfalls and I would not want to be responsible for losing a person their job in these harsh times. They have probably got a family who don't deserve to suffer.
What I tend to do if I feel particularly aggrieved by a phone user is just sort of look at them and the phone and give a mildly negative gesture like a shake of the head or a roll of the eyes. It may not get much of a response but it may well just alert them to the fact that some people (albeit a cyclist) lokk upon their behaviour disfavorably. Let me tell you, you don't want to be on the receiving end of one of my "looks" I've been told it can be very disconcerting...Or was it amusing.


----------



## The Horse's Mouth (8 Jan 2013)

Driving in London everyday I would be calling the police everyday if i was going to report everyone for using mobile phones whilst driving. Just not worth the hassle.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Jan 2013)

Tynan said:


> I've skimmed this thread
> 
> People on a cycle forum are telling someone reporting the use of a mobile phone in a car that they're being silly or in someway a wrong 'un?
> 
> ...


 
And it's not as if you're a slightly built bloke is it?


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 Jan 2013)

It's just a shame Londons Roadsafe project isn't national. I'm very envious of it.


----------



## benb (8 Jan 2013)

I can't believe some posters here are giving Dan a hard time for reporting this. We all know that driving whilst on the phone is dangerous. Would you prefer that the driver killed or injured someone before any action was taken against them?

The police officer was an idiot, and if I was Dan I'd be feeling really pissed off that I was in trouble for reporting a crime!


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (8 Jan 2013)

PaulSB said:


> Not sure why I waded through all this. I ride my bike, never been abused by a driver, never had trouble with the police and, interestingly, never thought about wearing a camera.
> I'm sure there's a lesson in that.


Yes, there is a lesson: if you are lucky enough live somewhere where drivers are courteous and considerate, you will not feel a need to wear a camera. You lucky chap! :-)


----------



## davefb (8 Jan 2013)

one point.

company vehicle. if the company is not providing handsfree and expecting the driver to use the phone OR not making it clear drivers shouldn't use the phone, then they can be liable.. therefore reporting to the company is important.. beggers belief this is harassment..


well until you start following the guy and ringing up every day (etc)...

still, i'm tempted to agree with coppercyclist, I've known people hassled by police (well , two) and the only way it stopped was by them moving.. nothing major just stopping their cars all the time for 'no reason', but pita all the same.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2013)

To be frank, the more responsible companies will also ban handsfree use.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

Once again, I feel a couple of posters are being over-zealous. One has to learn when to pick one's battles. To discriminate between a crime that's worth reporting and a crime that'll simply cause hassle to the person doing the reporting.

I'd strongly suggest you ignore the advice to contact the chief constable of Northumbria Police and/or the IPCC. It'll just cause you a load of heartache.


----------



## 4F (8 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> I can't believe some posters here are giving Dan a hard time for reporting this. We all know that driving whilst on the phone is dangerous. Would you prefer that the driver killed or injured someone before any action was taken against them?
> 
> The police officer was an idiot, and if I was Dan I'd be feeling really ****ed off that I was in trouble for reporting a crime!


 
But where are you going to draw the line in reporting ? What about dangerous parking, jumping red lights, stopping in the hatched area at traffic lights etc etc ? 

The only way you are going to get people to stop using their phones whilst driving is to disqualify them. Instant ban of 3 months for the first offence and then increase from there.


----------



## benb (8 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Once again, I feel a couple of posters are being over-zealous. One has to learn when to pick one's battles. To discriminate between a crime that's worth reporting and a crime that'll simply cause hassle to the person doing the reporting.
> 
> I'd strongly suggest you ignore the advice to contact the chief constable of Northumbria Police and/or the IPCC. It'll just cause you a load of heartache.


 
Can you explain why this is not worth reporting?
I presume you'd think that drink driving is worth reporting? Well, studies have shown that driving whilst on the phone has a similar level of impairment as drink driving.

We ought to have a zero tolerance approach to driving on the phone.


----------



## benb (8 Jan 2013)

4F said:


> But where are you going to draw the line in reporting ? What about dangerous parking, jumping red lights, stopping in the hatched area at traffic lights etc etc ?
> 
> The only way you are going to get people to stop using their phones whilst driving is to disqualify them. Instant ban of 3 months for the first offence and then increase from there.


 
Jumping red lights yes. The others, whilst annoying and illegal, are unlikely to be particularly dangerous.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Can you explain why this is not worth reporting?
> I presume you'd think that drink driving is worth reporting? Well, studies have shown that driving whilst on the phone has a similar level of impairment as drink driving.
> 
> We ought to have a zero tolerance approach to driving on the phone.


 
Perhaps we should have a zero tolerance but we don't. The likelihood is 3 points. Drink driving would be a ban.

Rightly or wrongly the current situation is that in the eyes of the law drink driving is a more serious offence.

Trying to change attitudes by cyclists filming, reporting to both employer and police of phone use , more so in situations that the OP filmed (driving slowly etc) in my opinion won't work. 

It's all just a bit weird for me.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Can you explain why this is not worth reporting?



I already did. It's not worth reporting because nothing good will come of it. I agree that phone use whilst driving should be treated as harshly as drink-driving, but it isn't. And encouraging a young lad to get himself tied up in knots with the authorities isn't going to change that.


----------



## Drago (8 Jan 2013)

It'll be brilliant in court, when the first thing the defence advocate asks the witness is to confirm their name and address.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Perhaps we should have a zero tolerance but we don't. The likelihood is 3 points. Drink driving would be a ban.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly the current situation is that in the eyes of the law drink driving is a more serious offence.
> 
> ...


So i assume being on the phone is a queue is acceptable to you as well. It can me just as bad at slow or fast, what if he went out of lane at slow speed and hit another person something the other way.... The fact is when using a phone or drink driving its not ifs and buts, its when and were.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I already did. It's not worth reporting because nothing good will come of it. I agree that phone use whilst driving should be treated as harshly as drink-driving, but it isn't. And encouraging a young lad to get himself tied up in knots with the authorities isn't going to change that.


The person got advised... something did come of that or did you just miss that fact.

Advised is not the same as nothing was done.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> So i assume being on the phone is a queue is acceptable to you as well. It can me just as bad at slow or fast, what if he went out of lane at slow speed and hit another person something the other way.... The fact is when using a phone or drink driving its not ifs and buts, its when and were.


 
I didn't say it was acceptable.

Lots of things are unacceptable/anti social etc.

Please try and read posts properly.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

One note..... this could all have been avoided if there was a form of communication between the police in the call centers and the stations. If they don't wish to have these things reported due to X Y Z... tell the call centers..... This is easy and the only cost is the phone call.
The fact is to report anything you have to fill in a form which goes to the call centers. No other way to contact the police direct. Local stations don't have emails to public or anything of the sort.

But clear from the other posters i am to blaim for this clearly.

Nothing wrong with some common courtesy.

The validity of the report is brought into question by most. As what some are saying im wrong to report.


----------



## subaqua (8 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> I can't believe some posters here are giving Dan a hard time for reporting this. We all know that driving whilst on the phone is dangerous. Would you prefer that the driver killed or injured someone before any action was taken against them?
> 
> The police officer was an idiot, and if I was Dan I'd be feeling really ****ed off that I was in trouble for reporting a crime!


 but once you start criticising driving etc you may as well tell a bloke he has a tiny penious.

Have been having a discussion on another forum where somebody was reminding people about having to renew the photocard and somebody mentioned about you'll have to get it changed if you get points- ( You don't ) and i said that if they were a good careful driver they wouldn't get points and one person couldn't quite get it into their head that you only get points ifyou break the law and that if you were careful you wouldn't get points , and that a good driver can still be not careful.

AFAIAC if you see it then let the police know on 101.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> The person got advised... something did come of that or did you just miss that fact.
> 
> Advised is not the same as nothing was done.



Yes. He got advised not to use his mobile and you got threatened with arrest. If you see that as a result then good on you. Ultimately, you'll ignore my advice and end up making a name for yourself in your area like Matthew.

Good luck and happy cycling.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Yes. He got advised not to use his mobile and you got* threatened with arrest*. If you see that as a result then good on you. Ultimately, you'll ignore my advice and end up making a name for yourself in your area like Matthew.
> 
> Good luck and happy cycling.


 
Coppercyclist made clear what that the uniform was trying to do by saying this. Hot Air
Personally i would think the officer just said that to reinforce a point he was trying to make.
I didn't personally like him didnt like him . Also hes seemed one of those people where if you challenge them you have somehow offended them. He did start to raise voice a bit but i didn't back down due to the fact he was wrong in what he was saying.... It was clear how frustrated he was getting that my dad stepped in to defuse the situation, by stabbing me in the back(he later said to me it was the fact it was clear i was pissing the guy off as much as he was me.. it was not going to go anywhere and i wanted him out the house!)


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> One note..... this could all have been avoided.


 

Yes


----------



## benb (8 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Yes


 
Yes, by the driver not using his phone when he shouldn't.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Yes, by the driver not using his phone when he shouldn't.


Is that pwned you spell


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Yes, by the driver not using his phone when he shouldn't.


 
And by Dan creating a storm in a teacup.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

Who is telisa?


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Who is telisa?


typo *tulisa* but you already knew that.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Yes, there is a lesson: if you are lucky enough live somewhere where drivers are courteous and considerate, you will not feel a need to wear a camera. You lucky chap! :-)


To be frank, i wear the camera for the few... if i was to upload every good driver, YouTube would run out of space.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> typo *tulisa* but you already knew that.




I'd assumed you meant her, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Charming young man aren't you?


----------



## davefb (8 Jan 2013)

as for as reporting goes....

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/P...ists-texting/story-12245549-detail/story.html


----------



## Mugshot (8 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I'd assumed you meant her, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Charming young man aren't you?


Where's the original reference to her gone?
I read it earlier, thought that's who may have been meant, you had it confirmed but by that time I'd forgotten what the original quote said so I had a look at for it and can't seem to find it. Thanks for listening


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Where's the original reference to her gone?
> I read it earlier, thought that's who may have been meant, you had it confirmed but by that time I'd forgotten what the original quote said so I had a look at for it and can't seem to find it. Thanks for listening


No doubt hip being a outstanding CC member would report the post.... it would be deemed offensive.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

davefb said:


> as for as reporting goes....
> 
> http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/P...ists-texting/story-12245549-detail/story.html


Seems the officer at hand does not share the same opinion. I doubt this was representative of the polices view as i talk to the police when i see them on the street alot as i enjoy talking to them. They seem to think the camera idea is good. Where i draw the line is.... i dont go looking for these people, im enjoying the ride... its not my fault they find me and i happen to have a camera.


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Jan 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Where's the original reference to her gone?
> I read it earlier, thought that's who may have been meant, you had it confirmed but by that time I'd forgotten what the original quote said so I had a look at for it and can't seem to find it. Thanks for listening


 
I saw it and found it slightly grim. It may still be there (a page or so back) but there has been a pattern of wiping and revisionism lately from some elements of the* Angry-Rant Film & Report Mob*. Not that I'd put Bicycle Dan under that heading. No way. Seems a lovely chap.

The young chappie from Wales who sounds Welsh but despises the Welsh (and the poor) has seen the light and removed much of his Shoutathonic, Pious-Lawbringer, Self-appointed Judge Judy & Executioner stuff from Youtube. It was time for the light of reason to be seen there... But it took an avuncular word from a (Welsh) policeman to get action.

This chap (Bicycle Dan) had to backpedal on a Youtube piece that he'd titled as47mph in a 30 when asked about it by the (Horrid) Police. Turns out it was nearer 30mph but he... ... wanted to attract viewers.

So revisionism is all the rage.

This angry teenage stuff is lots of fun and I dare say we'd all have been self-righteous camera vigilantes at their age had the technology existed.... But I do feel for the more adult and restrained end of the helmetcam spectrum who may rightly feel that the webscream barmies are queering the pitch just a little.

I hope I have helped.... I fear I have not.

I have to put a new chain on my fixie this evening... so I apologise if that task has made me sound in any way grumpy or judgemental.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

"This chap (Bicycle Dan) had to backpedal on a Youtube piece that he'd titled as47mph in a 30 when asked about it by the (Horrid) Police. Turns out it was nearer 30mph but he... ... wanted to attract viewers."

i changed it becuase of the fact the officer took the video at face value then chucked a load of charges at me like cycling furiously of which he could charge me with. Willing to pursue this but not being on phone, hypocritical i think (I place the charge in the same area but with a car on the phone i rate it higher but on the same level). However the fact was, it was a poly for YouTube to attract viewers to that particular video. I changed the title and information due to the fact if the police took it at face value who else would then use this exaggerated video to dismiss me.


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> No doubt hip being a outstanding CC member would report the post.... it would be deemed offensive.



Nope. Didn't report it. Didn't find it offensive. Found it a bit peurile though.


----------



## benb (8 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> And by Dan creating a storm in a teacup.


 
Storm in a teacup? Driving whilst using a phone is not minor - it's dangerous. We should be reporting these, and I say well done Dan for doing so.

Seems like a lot of people on this thread would prefer that the driver injured someone before action was taken.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2013)

Sounds to me like we all need to pull our socks up to some degree, but most of all that scunner of a driver on the phone.


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

This is getting tiring and i know im tried of the same thing being said over and over just in a different way. We all have crystal cut opinions on reporting and phone use which are not going to be changed in this post.
Is it possible for a Admin to lock this post?


----------



## davefb (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> "This chap (Bicycle Dan) had to backpedal on a Youtube piece that he'd titled as47mph in a 30 when asked about it by the (Horrid) Police. Turns out it was nearer 30mph but he... ... wanted to attract viewers."
> 
> i changed it becuase of the fact the officer took the video at face value then chucked a load of charges at me like cycling furiously of which he could charge me with. Willing to pursue this but not being on phone, hypocritical i think (I place the charge in the same area but with a car on the phone i rate it higher but on the same level). However the fact was, it was a poly for YouTube to attract viewers to that particular video. I changed the title and information due to the fact if the police took it at face value who else would then use this exaggerated video to dismiss me.


are you sure this was a policeman?

"furious cycling" , isn't that a myth ? he'd have to prove not only the speed , but you have to injure someone?

do police just hand out random fines? starts to sound like a not the nine o clock news sketch..


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> i changed it becuase of the fact the officer took the video at face value then chucked a load of charges at me like cycling furiously of which he could charge me with. Willing to pursue this but not being on phone, hypocritical i think (I place the charge in the same area but with a car on the phone i rate it higher but on the same level). However the fact was, it was a poly for YouTube to attract viewers to that particular video. I changed the title and information due to the fact if the police took it at face value who else would then use this exaggerated video to dismiss me.


 
Dan, I think you're lovely but I have no idea what the above is about.

Prepositions are delicate things, not shotgun pellets. Blasting a fistful of them at a phrase can do more damage than good.

I've read this post of yours a few times and am no nearer to understanding whether you're angry, relieved, overjoyed or depressed.

And whichever of those you may or may not be, I have no idea what the cause of that feeling might be.

I really do think you're lovely, but you'd seem even lovelier if you made a tiny, weeny spark of sense.

I hope I have helped where the Police were unable to.


----------



## 4F (8 Jan 2013)

davefb said:


> do police just hand out random fines? starts to sound like a not the nine o clock news sketch..


 
Constable Savage ? 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y


----------



## Cycling Dan (8 Jan 2013)

davefb said:


> are you sure this was a policeman?
> 
> "furious cycling" , isn't that a myth ? he'd have to prove not only the speed , but you have to injure someone?
> 
> do police just hand out random fines? starts to sound like a not the nine o clock news sketch..


Cycling furiously is a thing..... however the post above lines with the scare tactic. It was an explanation to why i changed the video.

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/cyclelaw/speed_limits.html


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Jan 2013)

I agree with Dan. We're going round in circles now. Let's agree to disagree. I'll leave you with this - if Furious Cycling was a crime, Tester Animal wouldget life.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2013)

Well, I'm certainly glad you're still around in commuting, Hip Priest. We might not always agree, but the place would be poorer without you.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I saw it and found it slightly grim. It may still be there (a page or so back) but there has been a pattern of wiping and revisionism lately from some elements of the* Angry-Rant Film & Report Mob*. Not that I'd put Bicycle Dan under that heading. No way. Seems a lovely chap.
> 
> The young chappie from Wales who sounds Welsh but despises the Welsh (and the poor) has seen the light and removed much of his Shoutathonic, Pious-Lawbringer, Self-appointed Judge Judy & Executioner stuff from Youtube. It was time for the light of reason to be seen there... But it took an avuncular word from a (Welsh) policeman to get action.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing it's been deleted then, oh well, thanks to my aging and befuddled mind I now have no idea whether I should be offended or not, perhaps I should be offended that a teenager has decided that I may be offended, or maybe I should be grateful.
Either way it's been an interesting few days in the CC universe I've learnt so much about the law, geography, history, politics and even the importance of social standing all thanks to a couple of young men with cameras, they're like Kevin Carter and Georges Melies, thanks fellas .


----------



## campbellab (8 Jan 2013)

davefb said:


> as for as reporting goes....
> 
> http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/P...ists-texting/story-12245549-detail/story.html


 
I'd be so tempted to shove that in the officers face. Or perhaps post it anon


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Once again, I feel a couple of posters are being over-zealous. One has to learn when to pick one's battles. To discriminate between a crime that's worth reporting and a crime that'll simply cause hassle to the person doing the reporting.
> 
> I'd strongly suggest you ignore the advice to contact the chief constable of Northumbria Police and/or the IPCC. It'll just cause you a load of heartache.


 
Do you think it acceptable that a police officer to avoid doing any work or investigating on a matter regarding a criminal offence starts bullying a witness and suggesting they have committed offences when they haven't? Are you a supporter of the cosy PR arrangements the police had with News International? Where crime occurs the police have a statutory duty to investigate. In this instant case there is strong evidence showing the driver committing a road traffic offence. It is very unsatisfactory that the copper tasked with dealing with this matter feels he CBA to waste his time on it. The instant offence might only be using a mobile phone whilst driving a vehicle, but this a potentially a very serious hazard activity to be doing whilst driving and has very serious implications for road safety. Perhaps the cops don't consider that road safety is that important as the copper has then gone on to suggest/accuse the witness ie Dan, who perfectly legitimately took the footage of the driver committing an offence, of offences himself in the hope that he (Dan) will be frigthened off pursuing the matter and drop it. Surely if Dan has spent time and money (cost of the cam) to obtain evidence such as this when he sees drivers using phones whilst driving and then taking the time to report the matter to the police and also been willing to submit his video evidence, then the least the police can do is investigate it properly and thank him for his trouble. It is not as if the police actually have to do much work as Dan has the video footage. It's an easy point for them. The police's response so far is disgraceful. Period.


----------



## Drago (9 Jan 2013)

Except no crime has occurred, so there is no statutory duty.

There is an offence, which is a different kettle of aquatic life.

I think our chap has been treated very shabbily (I'd have had mateys balls on a barb wire platter with footage like that) but making up and misinterpreting the law in your indignation doesn't do anything positive.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> Except no crime has occurred, so there is no statutory duty.
> 
> There is an offence, which is a different kettle of aquatic life.


 
So using a mobile phone whilst driving is NOT a criminal offence? When did the law change or have I been mistaken all along? Ohhhh .......... so this is why so many drivers drive and dial! The police don't believe it is an offence. This explains everything.


----------



## Drago (9 Jan 2013)

It is not a crime.

You need to understand that crime, offence and non-compliance are different things, and you seem to be using the words 'crime' and 'offence' as if they are interchangeable when they are not.

Most offences are not crimes, as is the case here.

BTW, I can read normal text perfectly well but being a dyslexia sufferer means words needlessly typed in CAPITALS are harder to read and understand. I'm dyslexic, not stupid. Shouting key words may work with your kids, or at work, but for those with this disability such actions actually detract from the delivery and understanding of your message.

As aforementioned in my previous post, I'd have tried to take this one to court if the witness was willing to support it.


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> It is not a crime.
> 
> You need to understand that crime, offence and non-compliance are different things, and you seem to be using the words 'crime' and 'offence' as if they are interchangeable when they are not.
> 
> Most offences are not crimes, as is the case here.


 
I think that most people would understand that if something is against the law, then it is a crime.
It might be the case that there's a narrow legal difference between crime and offence, but it has no bearing on this situation, whether people should report crimes/offences, or what everyone understands when you use the term "crime".


----------



## Drago (9 Jan 2013)

There is actually a big difference between the two, and ultimately it does have a bearing on the duty of the police, and the ultimate resolution of the situation.

Not being a crime there is no legal obligation to record and progress the matter. That's not to say it wouldn't be desirable to do so (I think road safety is a big deal so I'd have tried to run with it) but there is no lawful duty for an officer to do so if they chose not to. Were it an excess alcohol offence, for example, then that would also be a crime and the police are obligated to take action if that crime is suspected.

So the legal status of such an act is very important when determining what the police must do, or is conversely at the handling officers discretion to do. 

Because Crankarm does not understand the distinction between the two he has wrongfully opined that the Police have not acted in accordance with their lawful obligation, which is incorrect.


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> There is actually a big difference between the two, and ultimately it does have a bearing on the duty of the police, and the ultimate resolution of the situation.
> 
> Not being a crime there is no legal obligation to record and progress the matter. That's not to say it wouldn't be desirable to do so (I think road safety is a big deal so I'd have tried to run with it) but there is no lawful duty for an officer to do so if they chose not to. We're it an excess alcohol offence, then that would also be a crime and the police are obligated to take action if that crime is suspected.
> 
> ...


 
So members of the public need to be legal experts now before deciding whether to report something that is against the law?

Please could you clarify what you mean when you say that driving on the phone is not a crime? It's against the law, isn't it?


----------



## Drago (9 Jan 2013)

It is an offence. It is not a crime. It is contrary to the particular law, not against it. Being an offence only there is no lawful duty in an officer to record the matter and progress it. The progression of such a matter will come down to many things, including its seriousness, whether its live or historic, the potential for public safety and welfare to be compromised, and local force policy on the offence under consideration. For example, here in Westshire it is still an offence to belt around at night on your bike with no lights, but our official policy is that we take no action, presumably on the basis that we'd do nothing else from dusk til dawn. You can complain about it all you want and we won't act on it.

In our OP scenario I would have tried to run it, but the decision is at the discretion of the handling officer. So while my personal view it is possibly a decision borne out of laziness, it is his (or her) decision to make.

A crime is usually also an offence. Crimes must be recorded, and where evidence exists to do so must be investigated to a particular standard.

It's a bit silly to suggest anyone reporting an incident should be a legal expert. If you think something is wrong, suspicious or dangerous it is your moral duty to report it. Conversely, when a person is offering a high fallutin' opinion about crime, offences and the police then it is certainly beneficial if they are factually correct if they don't want to be politely corrected.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> There is actually a big difference between the two, and ultimately it does have a bearing on the duty of the police, and the ultimate resolution of the situation.
> 
> Not being a crime there is no legal obligation to record and progress the matter. That's not to say it wouldn't be desirable to do so (I think road safety is a big deal so I'd have tried to run with it) but there is no lawful duty for an officer to do so if they chose not to. Were it an excess alcohol offence, for example, then that would also be a crime and the police are obligated to take action if that crime is suspected.
> 
> ...


 
Kindly expain please as I think Benb has also asked you to do.

The police investigate criminal acts with a view to prosecution (CPS).

Use of mobile phone whilst driving - offence under the RTA? If it is not a criminal offence then it is a civil offence which would not come under the police's jurisdiction?

You have already provided sufficient comment to suggest that your colleage who has dealt with Dan's matter is remiss in his duty to pursue this matter and certainly in his treatment of Dan. To me this starts alarm bells ringing. The fact there are vastly different opinions within the police of how this matter should be dealt with suggests that some police officers have a very casual attitude to investigating certain types of criminal activity and also how they treat witnesses.


----------



## davefb (9 Jan 2013)

err okay, thats interesting.
I thought, using the mobile phone was 'different' because it is named specifically, unlike say the vagueness of 'eating a banana' which would be 'driving whilst distracted' ( or something).
https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law


wonder if the local police had words with the person who reported this?
http://www.thisishullandeastriding....using-mobile/story-17767720-detail/story.html


----------



## Drago (9 Jan 2013)

It is a criminal offence. it is clearly not a civil one.

It is not a crime.

The distinction is complex and subtle and took me 5 weeks to learn in dibble school at Ashford. In a hugely over simplistic nutshell, a crime is an event (usually an offence as well) that the law says must be recorded, and having been thus recorded will be Investigated to a certain National Standard with a view to being appropriately detected. In legal circles it us referred to as 'recordable crime', not simply crime.

An offence (that is a criminal offence, not a civil wrong or 'tort') does not have to be recorded or prosecuted. In my previous post i have made brief reference to some of the criteria an officer might wish to consider when determining whether to investigate an offence. With a recordable crime they have no choice - they will record and investigate it on pain of possible prosecution.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> It is an offence. It is not a crime. It is contrary to the particular law, not against it. Being an offence only there is no lawful duty in an officer to record the matter and progress it. The progression of such a matter will come down to many things, including its seriousness, whether its live or historic, the potential for public safety and welfare to be compromised, and local force policy on the offence under consideration. For example, here in Westshire it is still an offence to belt around at night on your bike with no lights, but our official policy is that we take no action, presumably on the basis that we'd do nothing else from dusk til dawn. You can complain about it all you want and we won't act on it.
> 
> In our OP scenario I would have tried to run it, but the decision is at the discretion of the handling officer. So while my personal view it is possibly a decision borne out of laziness, it is his (or her) decision to make.
> 
> ...


 
I'm no wiser I am afraid. Sorry. Has it got to do with the fact that the police now class "crime" as offences so they can get away with investigating fewer cases and they only have to investigate recorded crimes as offences do not have to be properly investigated if at all? Not recording "crimes" as crimes, but as offences means that a police officer's and his force's crime and investigating performance and success figures might appear much better than they might otherwise be? This will then misrepresent the performance of the police. Some officers might just see this as a green light to be less conscientious than they might be. If this is the case then it stinks.

I just need to add I make no criticism of you personally Drago. I am sure you are an exemplary, conscientious and diligent copper. I wish you luck as you will need it, as most of the cops I have met are not like you.


----------



## Drago (9 Jan 2013)

Just take my word for it (or don't, I shan't lose any sleep). There is a distinction between a crime and a criminal offence, and that difference confers different lawful obligations on an individual officer or their force ad to how the natter is recorded and progressed.

The law and official guidance has been trimmed, nipped and tucked over the years, but essence it has been this way for the last century. If anything, the direction the law has taken is such that there is far more lawful duty imposed on an officer to record crime than there ever had been. In the old days some horrific 'cuffing' or 'batting' took place and even some extremely serious crimes were just brushed aside. 

The law is painfully complex and often contradictory. This is one of the most basic premises about the structure of criminal law and its still a mare. This is why solicitors typically spend more time learning their trade than the physicists who design nuclear weapons, and is why they get paid a damn sight more too.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Do you think it acceptable that a police officer to avoid doing any work or investigating on a matter regarding a criminal offence starts bullying a witness and suggesting they have committed offences when they haven't? Are you a supporter of the cosy PR arrangements the police had with News International? Where crime occurs the police have a statutory duty to investigate. In this instant case there is strong evidence showing the driver committing a road traffic offence. It is very unsatisfactory that the copper tasked with dealing with this matter feels he CBA to waste his time on it. The instant offence might only be using a mobile phone whilst driving a vehicle, but this a potentially a very serious hazard activity to be doing whilst driving and has very serious implications for road safety. Perhaps the cops don't consider that road safety is that important as the copper has then gone on to suggest/accuse the witness ie Dan, who perfectly legitimately took the footage of the driver committing an offence, of offences himself in the hope that he (Dan) will be frigthened off pursuing the matter and drop it. Surely if Dan has spent time and money (cost of the cam) to obtain evidence such as this when he sees drivers using phones whilst driving and then taking the time to report the matter to the police and also been willing to submit his video evidence, then the least the police can do is investigate it properly and thank him for his trouble. It is not as if the police actually have to do much work as Dan has the video footage. It's an easy point for them. The police's response so far is disgraceful. Period.



I just believe that it'd be better for Dan in the long run not to take the matter further. That's my advice. Your advice is different. To suggest I approve of the corruption uncovered by Leveson suggests a lack of perspective on your part.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I just believe that it'd be better for Dan in the long run not to take the matter further. That's my advice. Your advice is different. To suggest I approve of the corruption uncovered by Leveson suggests a lack of perspective on your part.


 
Why would it be better for Dan in the "long run"? Would the police black mark him, start harrassing and bullying him like they have allegedly done to Stuart Lawrence? Ok Dan would have to take time to actually write a complaint to the CC of his police force and if they didn't do anything then the IPCC, but aside from this I don't see any down sides. WRT to his Youtube footage claiming to be riding at 47mph in a 30mph he shouldn't worry as there is no way that is going anywhere. Youthful exuberance on his part. The police would actually have to have strong evidence of this which is more than Dan's claims which he has admitted were made up. He might have been foolish to make these claims, but they are false.
More serious is the copper's dereliction of duty and misconduct by trying to avoid investigating suggesting Dan has been harrassing the driver. The copper is in need of reprimanding and re-training. If this fails then booting out of the police. He is obviously a cyclist hater to have adopted such a confrontational response to Dan creating obstacles and hurdles to avoid investigating. Obstructive and uncooperative would be a charitable description of the officer's handling of this matter.


----------



## davefb (9 Jan 2013)

maybe the copper knows the bloke?

[edit] err allegedly...


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Jan 2013)

I think the Clash should have the last word on this.


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Why would it be better for Dan in the "long run"? Would the police black mark him, start harrassing and bullying him like they have allegedly done to Stuart Lawrence? Ok Dan would have to take time to actually write a complaint to the CC of his police force and if they didn't do anything then the IPCC, but aside from this I don't see any down sides. WRT to his Youtube footage claiming to be riding at 47mph in a 30mph he shouldn't worry as there is no way that is going anywhere. Youthful exuberance on his part. The police would actually have to have strong evidence of this which is more than Dan's claims which he has admitted were made up. He might have been foolish to make these claims, but they are false.
> More serious is the copper's dereliction of duty and misconduct by trying to avoid investigating suggesting Dan has been harrassing the driver. The copper is in need of reprimanding and re-training. If this fails then booting out of the police. He is obviously a cyclist hater to have adopted such a confrontational response to Dan creating obstacles and hurdles to avoid investigating. Obstuctive and uncooperative would be a charitable description of the officer's handling of this matter.


 
It may (or may not) be helpful to bear in mind that some behaviours suggest a personality type who may not communicate in a way that is likely to make the other party warm to him or her. 

It may also be helpful to reflect that someone who finds it amusing or clever to post on YouTube with absurd speed claims may have an unusual relationship with the truth and may (or may not) live in a Rashomon world where they tell the story they'd like to be able to tell rather than the one they witnessed.

Bicycle Dan's posts about contact with The Police bear no relation to any contact I've had with them. We may be making a lot of assumptions here on the basis of the testimony of a youngster who seems to have a bonnet with a pretty serious bee problem.

I may be very wrong. One way or another, this thread has been hugely entertaining but it smacks slightly of an angry teen-vigilante determined to bring mighty justice to the North East before he goes home for his tea. Whether said tea is eaten on a high chair I cannot conjecture.

The Police have to make judgements about what action to take. It may (or may not) be that behaviours exhibited in dialogue with the police made it easier for them to decide that this was not a matter worth taking further.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2013)

It wouldn't play well for the copper if the driver ended up hurting someone whilst chatting on a mobile, the incredulous mail headline would be:

_"Concerned citizen threatened with arrest after reporting driver on mobile who collided with queue of colour-blind ginger orphans!"_


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

Drago, thanks for clarifying.

Presumably the difference as whether something is a recordable crime or not is laid down in statute? That is, it's not up to the police to decide whether it is a crime or "just" an offence.

I don't think we can or should expect the police to investigate everything - they simply don't have the resources. If the officer had politely explained to Dan that due to limited manpower they would not be taking this further, but perhaps record a note against the vehicle, I think we would have accepted that, albeit with a little disappointment. 

So whilst I agree that the police cannot investigate everything, I think they should have better reasons for not doing so than "I can't be bothered". And if resources are so scarce, how has the police officer found time to visit Dan to give him a hard time about it?


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> It may (or may not) be helpful to bear in mind that some behaviours suggest a personality type who may not communicate in a way that is likely to make the other party warm to him or her.
> 
> It may also be helpful to reflect that someone who finds it amusing or clever to post on YouTube with absurd speed claims may have an unusual relationship with the truth and may (or may not) live in a Rashomon world where they tell the story they'd like to be able to tell rather than the one they witnessed.
> 
> ...


 
Yebbut, Dan isn't on trial Boris is he? He may be a _total_ fruitcake with issues for all we know. Are you saying that everyone has to be an exemplary citizen before they report clear wrong doing to the police? Presumably Dan is of good character. He has footage of someone dialing and driving.This is all that is relevant. He has taken the time to report it which is reasonable and presumably he is willing to support it by making a statement. The cops could then investigate, pass to CPS for prosecution, fine and points and/or attendance on a driver awareness course or words of advice. The current response is inadequate so inadequate that it is wrong.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> Just take my word for it (or don't, I shan't lose any sleep). There is a distinction between a crime and a criminal offence, and that difference confers different lawful obligations on an individual officer or their force ad to how the natter is recorded and progressed.
> 
> The law and official guidance has been trimmed, nipped and tucked over the years, but essence it has been this way for the last century. If anything, the direction the law has taken is such that there is far more lawful duty imposed on an officer to record crime than there ever had been. In the old days some horrific 'cuffing' or 'batting' took place and even some extremely serious crimes were just brushed aside.
> 
> The law is painfully complex and often contradictory. This is one of the most basic premises about the structure of criminal law and its still a mare. This is why solicitors typically spend more time learning their trade than the physicists who design nuclear weapons, and is why they get paid a damn sight more too.


 
Thank you for taking the time to reply. It's a little clearer although not much ............


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Yebbut, Dan isn't on trial Boris is he? He may be a _total_ fruitcake with issues for all we know. Are you saying that everyone has to be an exemplary citizen before they report clear wrong doing to the police? Presumably Dan is of good character. He has footage of someone dialing and driving.This is all that is relevant. He has taken the time to report it which is reasonable and presumably he is willing to support it by making a statement. The cops could then investigate, pass to CPS for prosecution, fine and points and/or attendance on a driver awareness course or words of advice. The current response is inadequate so inadequate that it is wrong.


 
You're absolutely right about character not being an issue when the Police make a judgement. They must be entirely disinterested and must take as seriously a call from a total fruitcake as they might a call from the Master of the Rolls.

You're also quite right about Dan not being on trial. He is not.

I'm not saying that everyone has to be an exemplary citizen before they report a crime.

I do think there is a case here for making a judgement call. We have only Dan's word to go on.

The response of the Police that Dan writes of is so far from *everything* I've witnessed in my many years (as the good boy and the bad boy) that I'm not sure whether I find it entirely credible.

The judgement was made not to prosecute the driver.

The decision was made to visit Dan and have a quiet word with him.

I do not find the lack of action against the driver wrong or inadequate. I find it a judgement call that many might disagree with.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

LOCO said:


> I think the Clash should have the last word on this.




Riding bikes in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won (x2)
I needed a camera so I bought one
I fought the law and the law won (x2)

I filmed some bloke on his mobile phone
I thought that he’d get done
But the policeman came round to my home
I fought the law and the law won (x2)

Filming people on the school run
I fought the law and the law won (x2)
Just like those blokes in London
I fought the law and the law won (x2)

I told everyone on the cycling forum
Some said that I should move on
But they’re all tossers so I’m gonna ignore ‘em
I fought the law and the law won (x2)


----------



## classic33 (9 Jan 2013)

Drago said:


> It is not a crime.
> 
> You need to understand that crime, offence and non-compliance are different things, and you seem to be using the words 'crime' and 'offence' as if they are interchangeable when they are not.
> 
> ...


So, using a mobile phone whilst driving is illegal
So, using a mobile phone whilst driving is both illegal & criminal offence(both punishable in the courts) but it is not a crime. Prosecuted for not committing a crime!
That being the case what role would the police play in dealing with the first two, it being illegal & a criminal offence, before it got to court. If its not a crime then. The courts must be packed with people who have committed no crime.

As for the other side of what happenned. I've been in similar circumstances, police not bothered. I ended up, like Dan, being made to feel the guilty party. Officers saying that they were not there & were no where near there at the time in question. One even produced his pocket book, which stated where he was(dealing with a RTC) to prove he wasn't there.

IF, the police were a bit more open maybe more people would be willing to help. But in this case all they seem to have done is alienate another member of society & have them thinking "Is it worth me reporting it, given what happenned last time".
Dan has nothing futher to prove to the police. The police now have to prove to Dan that they can be trusted to do the job for which they are paid.


----------



## davefb (9 Jan 2013)

priorities..
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/car-theft-victim-hits-out-1525135


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Jan 2013)

davefb said:


> priorities..
> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/car-theft-victim-hits-out-1525135



Hmm. when you read the whole story the police don't actually "tell her off for slagging off the thieves". They come round and offer her advice on how she's handling the matter on Facebook and take screen grabs to get everything covered.

For example, perhaps it better if instead of getting people to post to HER Facebook she encourages them to call the police if hey see the car? Screen grabs taken as we now have a nice list of witnesses to go speak to that may have seen the offenders.

And her partner out 'looking' for the car doesn't sit comfortably to me... What's he going to do, conduct his own high speed pursuit and drag them out with a CrookLok in his hand?

Some reading between the lines may be needed here I suggest.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Storm in a teacup? Driving whilst using a phone is not minor - it's dangerous. We should be reporting these, and I say well done Dan for doing so.
> 
> Seems like a lot of people on this thread would prefer that the driver injured someone before action was taken.


 
Yes, storm in a teacup.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Riding bikes in the hot sun
> I fought the law and the law won (x2)
> I needed a camera so I bought one
> I fought the law and the law won (x2)
> ...


I didn't think it would be possible to improve on that classic (certainly not The Clash version anyway), but you Mr Priest have elavated it to a whole new level


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2013)

tl;dr


----------



## green1 (9 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> using a mobile phone whilst driving is illegal


Is some circumstances, I use my phone regularly when driving perfectly legally.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2013)

green1 said:


> Is some circumstances, I use my phone regularly when driving perfectly legally.


 
You mean on handsfree? You might be surprised to find out that can in some situations still be very illegal and get you in big doo doo.


----------



## davefb (9 Jan 2013)

CopperCyclist said:


> Hmm. when you read the whole story the police don't actually "tell her off for slagging off the thieves". They come round and offer her advice on how she's handling the matter on Facebook and take screen grabs to get everything covered.
> 
> For example, perhaps it better if instead of getting people to post to HER Facebook she encourages them to call the police if hey see the car? Screen grabs taken as we now have a nice list of witnesses to go speak to that may have seen the offenders.
> 
> ...


I think it's more the "whilst this was happening, the car was still okay, after the police had finished, the car was burnt out"..
obviously all police aren't traffic and perhaps it's an unreal expectation, but since the group involved have a web precence, you might hope it would at least have been worth an effort tracking THEM down instead of the person who's car had been reported stolen..

mind you, something like that, I'd have a tracker device .. surely?


----------



## Electric_Andy (9 Jan 2013)

I really disagree with telling tales on people when they have not endangered you at all. Yes, if he drove into you or did something dangerous then by all means report the footage. All you are doing here is policing, which you shouldn't be doing unless you are a Policeman.


----------



## Electric_Andy (9 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> So who's job isit to report crimes? And who are you to determine when a crime is worthy to be reported to the police?
> 
> Bob next door is beating on his wife again, but its ok they love each other...
> 
> Neighbours smoking weed again, and people keep coming to their door, but kids will be kids!


 
The difference is that wife beating can have an immediate dangerous affect on a human's life, therefore is more appropriate to report. Most cycle footage I have seen just shows the cyclist shouting or gesturing to the offending driver, and that's fine, but trying to get the Police to take action on your request is not appropriate.


----------



## Cycling Dan (9 Jan 2013)

The fact is it is my word you are going on yes. My dad made a point of which i will follow next time is to record what is said between me and the police in case something like this arises again. 
I have wrote alot of emotion into the posts but the basic facts of what was said came in and were said in that order. If i have not sated my reply that is due to my just nodding or agreeing for the purpose. I had said little in the first encounter due to the fact i though it could harm what this person did regarding the driver which i still think to be a fair and just point consdiering what followed. 
What i have posted is what happened.
I have posted for advise which most mistake for "say your opinion of what you would or wouldn't do after the fact i reported it, you then go i wouldn't report it... great help thanks". The fact i have asked for advise... to post lies is counter intuitive. I gain nothing from lying. 
Now lets clear this up. Boris keeps repeating this over and over.

I am not taking issue with the officers management regarding the driver! I shall repeat. I am not taking issue with the officers management regarding the driver. What he chose to do i am fine with and will not take the matter further as i see it as a correct decision. 

The only thing i take offence in, is how i was regarded and treated during the process of reporting something which was wrong and the police had the right to know. Crime or offence, i was right in reporting this. Opinion changes on the matter but to say im wrong to report it, well is stupid. If you wouldn't report it, that's what you would do. There is no reason to take it out on me the fact i did report this but this is not in line with your ideology.
Since i did report it and the fact i asked for advise from what arisesed after... hammering again and again what you would have done is not helpful and has no place since i have done what i have done.
Some say this all could be avoided, yes it could have been.. if the officer took me seriously for X Y Z eg My age and the fact im a cyclist who happened to come across the person and then to report. However it didn't happen that way. Then he followed to claim im a vigilant and personally insult me. (in short but he did clearly call me a vigilant)
If he didn't want it reported or if he didn't think much could come from it... say that then let me leave. However clearly from what people have said... this is far to much to ask. I need to be pursed and crushed into the ground.

Also people seem to now pick up on my video which was a ploy for views to that particular video. True i would agree this was in a sense foolish. However the officer took the video at face value, this is not my fault rather his poor ability. To then accuse me of committing a offence i think it is out of order... (Maybe Drago can comment on that if *furious cycling* is a crime or offence, i think the latter from your previous comments?)

Newcastle Cycling Campaign were informed from the start once it became about me. They seem to imply im not the only one. A Network manger for this region for Sustrans who took a interest in this encounter is going to send a general inquiry email to the area commander on the general issue. To clear some things up mostly around Furious cycling, harassment= reporting a driver who is in a company car to the company and what the deal is with being told you would be arrested because of it. This is a general email.

I didn't tell the police officer what to do, all i did was simply reported it and made the police force aware of what happen. I at no point told him what he should do. He did ask me what i wanted to come from this but this was a general question which has been asked of me and i think is policy since when Y54VEN nearly knocked me down the same question was asked( Yes 400bhp i now know... no accident, no one was hurt.. non event. In note this did end up in the driver getting a section 59 warning so the police must have disagreed with you ) . This was not telling him what to do, he was asking in effect what i think would happen.

This is why i don't like forums too much. Opinions get in the way.


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

Electric_Andy said:


> I really disagree with telling tales on people when they have not endangered you at all. Yes, if he drove into you or did something dangerous then by all means report the footage. All you are doing here is policing, which you shouldn't be doing unless you are a Policeman.


 
Let's hope other people don't have the same attitude should they observe your house getting burgled.

Reporting a crime is not "telling tales"


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Yes, storm in a teacup.


 
Ah, so you _would_ prefer it if the driver injured someone before any action was taken.


----------



## 4F (9 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Let's hope other people don't have the same attitude should they observe your house getting burgled.
> 
> Reporting a crime is not "telling tales"


 
Are you honestly saying that you consider burglary and use of a phone to be as bad as each other ? If ever you were looking for definition between a crime and an offence I would say you have it there.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2013)

Drivers on mobiles kill far more people than burglars do.


----------



## Lance Jack (9 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan,
Your last post cleared up a few things for me and I see you in a different (more positive) way. I am not going to add anything to this as, having read eighteeen pages, I think most things have been said.
Dan, remember, opinions are like a***holes, everybody has one and they all stink. (Not that I am calling anybody on here a a***hole!)


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> Ah, so you _would_ prefer it if the driver injured someone before any action was taken.


 
No, don't be silly.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Jan 2013)

Wanton and furious driving, originally 'riding' as on a horse, is an offence contrary to the 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act.

See para 26: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/pbd_policy.html#_11

It may be an offence in legal/Drago speak, but you can get two years for it which would make you a criminal.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> Wanton and furious driving, originally 'riding' as on a horse, is an offence contrary to the 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act.
> 
> See para 26: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/pbd_policy.html#_11
> 
> It may be an offence in legal/Drago speak, but you can get two years for it which would make you a criminal.


 
It's what the cyclist who refused to use the cycle lane was charged with, IIRC.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Jan 2013)

glenn forger said:


> It's what the cyclist who refused to use the cycle lane was charged with, IIRC.


 
Could be, most of the driving offences contain the phrase "...you drove a mechanically propelled vehicle...".

Prosecutors still use wanton and furious when the vehicle - such as a bike - is not mechanically propelled.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2013)

Beg your pardon, it was "Inconsiderate":

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/pages/telford.htm



> CTC member, Daniel Cadden was cycling fast downhill on a single-lane carriageway when he was stopped by police who believed that the position he had taken in his lane was forcing cars to cross the solid white line in the centre of the road illegally in order to overtake. But rather than stop the cars that had broken the law, the officers decided to charge Daniel Cadden with inconsiderate cycling.
> 
> Judge Robin Onions and two magistrates threw out the case after hearing police evidence. They accepted arguments put forward by Cadden's barrister, Francis Fitzgibbon, that there were contradictions in the police's evidence, that there was no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle tracks and that causing only a short delay to drivers did not constitute "inconsiderate cycling".
> 
> The judge who sat at his first trial believed Daniel should have not been on the road at all and instead should have crossed three lanes of busy traffic to use a cycle path, which runs alongside the road where he was stopped.


----------



## classic33 (9 Jan 2013)

Question for the OP.
Has what happened, made you less likely to report anything you may see to the police. If the answer is yes, then the police will be the ones losing out because of this.

Remember this bit. You have nothing to prove to the police now, they have to prove themselves to you. Because of one person.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Drivers on mobiles kill far more people than burglars do.


 
Driving whilst using a mobile increases the likelihood of causing an accident, but the overwhelming majority of people who drive & dial will never cause an accident, let alone a death.

Burglars inflict suffering on everyone they steal from. To equate the two is asinine.


----------



## Cycling Dan (9 Jan 2013)

classic33 said:


> Question for the OP.
> Has what happened, made you less likely to report anything you may see to the police. If the answer is yes, then the police will be the ones losing out because of this.
> 
> Remember this bit. You have nothing to prove to the police now, they have to prove themselves to you. Because of one person.


Yes is the answer, the treatment i received has made me think twice about reporting anything to the police no matter how serious purely for the fact i fear that i would be persecuted by the fact i made a reporting. I didn't expect what happened to happen. In my place i doubt anyone could have. Given a few weeks to forget the incident my answer may still change. However... i do strongly believe that what was said and done is not representative of the police in my area, he just happened to ruin it for the rest. Why he acted like he did, who knows.


----------



## campbellab (9 Jan 2013)

Electric_Andy said:


> I really disagree with telling tales on people when they have not endangered you at all. Yes, if he drove into you or did something dangerous then by all means report the footage. All you are doing here is policing, which you shouldn't be doing unless you are a Policeman.


 
'Telling tales'? That contradicts directly with your last post that indicates you'd report someone beating their wife even though it doesn't endanger you.

You may want to go and look at a poem entitled 'First they came'


----------



## Cycling Dan (9 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Well, that's cleared that up then.
> 
> You sound a thoroughly balanced, mature, sensible young man.
> 
> ...


i truly don't know if you are sincere. If you are your post is much appreciated.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Driving whilst using a mobile increases the likelihood of causing an accident, but the overwhelming majority of people who drive & dial will never cause an accident, let alone a death.
> 
> Burglars inflict suffering on everyone they steal from. To equate the two is asinine.


 
You might as well claim drunk drivers usually don't kill. Whilst true, it's trying to defend the indefensible. A burglary results in annoyance and inconvenience and can frighten people, drivers on mobiles kill. A man changing a tyre was hit by a stupid girl fiddling with her phone and, five years to the day later, he died. She got three years. Interestingly, if she had deliberately aimed at him she couldn't have been charged with murder, he took too long to die:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

glenn forger said:


> A burglary results in annoyance and inconvenience and can frighten people


 
A burglary results in annoyance, inconvenience, financial loss (however much you're insured) and fear, for absolute everyone who is burgled. Burglars go about their business in the full knowledge of this.



glenn forger said:


> drivers on mobiles kill.


 
Drivers not on mobiles kill. Drivers on mobiles kill statistically more, but still the overwhelming majority of drivers, whether on a phone or not, will never harm anyone. And drivers on mobile never do so with the intention to cause harm, unlike burglars.

I'm against mobile phone use whilst driving, but some of the views on here are so extreme, that I find myself defending people who do it. Please do not think that I condone it, because I don't.


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

4F said:


> Are you honestly saying that you consider burglary and use of a phone to be as bad as each other ? If ever you were looking for definition between a crime and an offence I would say you have it there.


 
No, I would consider driving on the phone to be more serious.

Besides, you didn't make that distinction when you said you didn't think people should be "telling tales".


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> No, don't be silly.


 
So do you think he should not have reported it?


----------



## campbellab (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Drivers not on mobiles kill. Drivers on mobiles kill statistically more, but still the overwhelming majority of drivers, whether on a phone or not, will never harm anyone. And drivers on mobile never do so with the intention to cause harm, unlike burglars.
> 
> I'm against mobile phone use whilst driving, but some of the views on here are so extreme, that I find myself defending people who do it. Please do not think that I condone it, because I don't.


 
The problem arises not because people cant differentiate between the effects/intentions/morality of mobile phone use/burglary/whatever. Its the difference between the opinions on whether it should be reported.

Some people think that if something doesn't affect them they shouldn't report it - morally I think this is pretty repugnant. I imagine this is always turned on its head with an example like 'X is grievously beating up a vulnerable person do you report it?'.

It becomes more clear that what they actually mean is 'I will only report stuff that isn't affecting me when I judge that it is serious enough'. So you are basically relying on the individuals sense instead of following the laws of society that you live in. A lot of people wont report someone because it doesn't gain them anything. Reporting random mobile use is a pretty selfless act, giving up your time to hopefully prevent bad things happening to someone in the future.

Some of my reasons for not reporting crimes:

a) I can provide no real evidence therefore it wont amount to anything
b) I'm selfish and it takes up my time
c) Its done by someone that I know possibly like and I dont want to sour that relationship
d) I disagree with the law
e) I dont realistically see my report being acted upon


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2013)

When a driver on the phone crashes, they do not cause an "accident", hip priest.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> When a driver on the phone crashes, they do not cause an "accident", hip priest.


 
Let's not get into that discussion again!


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2013)

I really don't see why you need to be so difficult about using a different word. Is it necessary to be so stubbornly wrong?


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> I really don't see why you need to be so difficult about using a different word. Is it necessary to be so stubbornly wrong?


 
Wrong according to you. Right according to the dictionary.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Wrong according to you. Right according to the dictionary.


 
Wrong according to the dictionary. Anyway, even if you don't agree, why would you continue being so willfully offensive when you could easily use a different word?


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> So do you think he should not have reported it?


 
Reported it to whom?


----------



## campbellab (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> No


 
If no, please state reasons.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

campbellab said:


> If no, please state reasons.


 


Sorry, you caught me before I'd had chance to correct it.

See above reply.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong according to the dictionary. Anyway, even if you don't agree, why would you continue being so willfully offensive when you could easily use a different word?


 
The word accident isn't offensive. It is correct.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> The word accident isn't offensive. It is correct.


 
You are being offensive, and you are not using the word correctly, or rather you're using it in the old-fashioned sense of excusing drivers their fault. That is not acceptable and no longer correct. More and more people are turning away from using accident, including the police, the CTC, and many others.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

Is this for real?

Weird.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Jan 2013)

Blimey


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

Oh, here we go.....


----------



## glenn forger (9 Jan 2013)

It's pretty stupid to call a collision caused by a drunk or otherwise distracted driver an accident, for pretty obvious reasons. It's like saying a man died by accident after tying steaks to himself and climbing over the fence into a lion pen in a zoo.


----------



## Matthew_T (9 Jan 2013)

The term 'accident' implies that noone is to blame. If someone dies of a tsunami, that is an accident.
An 'incident' means that an event has happened and someone is to blame but it hasnt been proven yet. An incident is a traffic collision, or anything which could possibly be someones fault.


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Reported it to whom?


 
The Police.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> The Police.


 
If he wants to.


----------



## Hip Priest (9 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> You are being offensive, and you are not using the word correctly, or rather you're using it in the old-fashioned sense of excusing drivers their fault. That is not acceptable and no longer correct. More and more people are turning away from using accident, including the police, the CTC, and many others.


 
It appears that your stance is motivated by personal circumstances, and I respect that, so I'll not pursue this matter further. Rest assured that if you threaten me with violence again, I'll take action via the proper channels.

I'd like to thank everyone on Cycle Chat for the help and advice I've been given during my first 18 months or so as a 'proper' cyclist.

Keep on pedalling.


----------



## Moderators (9 Jan 2013)

The thread has been closed for the time being to allow people to calm down.
It seems to have runs it's course anyway and is going round in circles.
There is no need for threats of violence from anybody however emotive the subject


----------

