# A warning to those that use cameras



## gaz (10 May 2011)

Espcially those who report videos to Road Safe London.
I'm not the first and i'm sure I wont be the last to get a warning from RSL about the use of language.

I got a written warning today which outlines that if any further videos of me using offensive language in a public place then they will forward the video to the CPS for prosecution under the Public Order Act 1984.

I can't say i disagree with them, i personally don't want to act like that at all on the roads and as i mentioned on my blog yesterday, cycling videos can harm the image of cycling if we are seen to do stuff like swearing at every other road user.

In the heat of the moment when you have nearly been hit and the adrenaline is pumping, you might let loose a few words. I certainly admire anyone that doesn't.

There main point seems to be revolved around members of the public hearing that where not invovled in the incident. Which i think is fair enough, as i said in my blog post, it damages the image of cycling.

My new saying is


> Cars and vans can brake my bones but swearing wil get my prosecuted


----------



## asterix (10 May 2011)

Now wash your mouth out with soap!


----------



## crumpetman (10 May 2011)

The couple of times I have felt the need to shout an obscenity I then shouted sorry to those innocent people nearby. 

In your vids, why not just mute the swearing or mute the whole thing? For the most part you do not need the sound to determine if someone has driven dangerously.


----------



## fossyant (10 May 2011)

Blimey, better go and prosecute just about everyone you speak to.  

That's a bit naughty of RSL.  

My man, thou shall have to speak the mostest poshest of the Queens English - preferably with a plum in your mouth, quite !  

'Oh you vagabond, please doth explaineth why you have used your horse and cart to run my penny farthing off the queens highway, my kind sir ?  '

@#@#@###'@@'@@@ there - no idea what I just said.  Neither have I.


----------



## LosingFocus (10 May 2011)

crumpetman said:


> In your vids, why not just mute the swearing or mute the whole thing? For the most part you do not need the sound to determine if someone has driven dangerously.



This.

Or comedy dub them. "Oi, <_fiddlesticks_> you <_daft motherhugger_>" "Learn to drive you <_clucking front_>"

A bit like this: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmRTUNh1vPo


----------



## marinyork (10 May 2011)

gaz said:


> I got a written warning today which outlines that if any further videos of me using offensive language in a public place then they will forward the video to the CPS for prosecution under the Public Order Act 1984.



I think they need to grow up.


----------



## Melonfish (10 May 2011)

easy fix, keep sending your vids just kill the sound on the tracks before you send them so there's no audio.
no evidence of you swearing, plenty of evidence of them committing road offences.


----------



## henshaw11 (10 May 2011)

Hmm, bunch of f***ing jobsworths - they seem to be missing the point...

That said, on yesterday's commute when someone pulled a stupid overtake nr some lights I did remember where I was - in the centre of town - and yelled 'MORON!' rather than 'oi you thick c***!' - which would have probably been the case elsewhere...

The problem with removing the sound is if they start becoming threatening and you've previously lobbed some obscenities, you may be forced to leave the whole lot in...


----------



## BSRU (10 May 2011)

Does that mean you can swear like a sailor if you and the "video star" are not without ear shot of anyone else?

You could always make up you own swear words.


----------



## Tommi (10 May 2011)

gaz said:


> I got a written warning today which outlines that if any further videos of me using offensive language in a public place then they will forward the video to the CPS for prosecution under the Public Order Act 1984.


Priorities, we can has them. I presume they'll also be forwarding videos of other road users using offensive language in public places? You know, if can't be bothered to do anything about bad driving at least make road rage more civilised.


----------



## benborp (10 May 2011)

Someone of my (unfortunate) acquaintance admitted that his use of language towards me was unacceptable and wrong. He apologised and pleaded guilty to the associated public order offence. He still felt that it was ok to run me off the road and attempt to punch me in the head though. Good to see that everyone is getting their priorities aligned .


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 May 2011)

I do find this sort of thing a bit pathetic. Who says what is offensive? Is there somewhere a definitive list of words that are outlawed? What if I call someone a banker; is that offensive?

I suppose it's a good job that my cheap camera produces so much wind noise that you can hardly hear anything else most of the time. I never realized that was actually a safety feature!


----------



## Melonfish (10 May 2011)

Tommi said:


> Priorities, we can has them. I presume they'll also be forwarding videos of other road users using offensive language in public places? You know, if can't be bothered to do anything about bad driving at least make road rage more civilised.



yeah actually you raise a good point, need to keep sound for when they lash out at you.
i guess its learning to bite tongue under pressure - easier said then done.


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2011)

Crikey, they're really on a go-er with this one. I'm one of those who got once got warned via letter for overly aggressive behaviour, and I thought that was a little over the top as the woman concerned had just nearly wiped me out. I thought I'd been incredibly restrained, to be honest, and didn't even swear.

(See http://www.youtube.com/user/rosickyize for the KJ 05 driver vid if you want to take a look for yourself)

Of course this particular letter rather cut themselves, as its main point advised wrongly that I should be riding to the left instead of taking the lane up Leaves Green hill. Funnily enough last night I got a finely crafted PDF from John Franklin with his expert analysis, and also an email from David Dansky, and finally another communication from the head of the Met cycle task force. All disagreeing with the roadsafe officer.

Annoyingly, they wrote in the letter to the driver that I should have been further left, and she was crowing about it. Do you think I should ask Roadsafe to write a letter to her correcting that, and admitting that on the contrary I was entirely right to be taking the lane, both legally and via best practice?


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2011)

I can't say this surprises me - I'm half expecting a letter to drop on my doorstep about a public indecency offence given the state of some of my "older" lycra outfits. Please do not film me!

More seriously, swear in your head!


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2011)

Actually, I wonder whether their approach on language is at all reasonable? Is it really reasonable to expect perfect behaviour under an intense fight or flight response when your life has just been risked? Is there any sort of defence along these lines? I wonder what Martin Porter says about this?


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Crikey, they're really on a go-er with this one. I'm one of those who got once got warned via letter for overly aggressive behaviour, and I thought that was a little over the top as the woman concerned had just nearly wiped me out. I thought I'd been incredibly restrained, to be honest, and didn't even swear.
> 
> (See http://www.youtube.com/user/rosickyize for the KJ 05 driver vid if you want to take a look for yourself)
> 
> ...



Good work.

Yes, I'd ask them to redraft a letter stating that they have taken onboard expert opinion and their original take on the event was wrong. More importantly, I'd ask for the written evidence from Dansky, Franklin, and the Head of the Met cycle task force to be disseminated amongst the Roadsafe officers so they have a better understanding of cycling best practice. Even better, you could arrange to attend a briefing session on their premises, explaining why you adopted the position you did.


----------



## DamoDoublemint (10 May 2011)

I think I swear too much in my videos, and it's something I'm trying to avoid doing. I think coming across as calm in a situation like that looks a lot better, but in the heat of the moment, when the other driver is going on about how it's my fault he cut me up, it's hard to keep a cool head.

I have been worried that I might come across badly in my videos if I use bad language, and I admit editing over the audio in some videos with sound of traffic...

Thanks for the warning Gaz.


----------



## benb (10 May 2011)

You don't to appear too calm though, as they'll say "it was obviously a perfectly fine overtake officer, he didn't even say 'dash it'"


----------



## crazy580 (10 May 2011)

It says in the Public Order Act 1986 that it is defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable. 


Could you say that your conduct was reasonable in the circumstances?


----------



## ohnovino (10 May 2011)

crazy580 said:


> It says in the Public Order Act 1986 that it is defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable.
> 
> 
> Could you say that your conduct was reasonable in the circumstances?



I think instinctively letting out a "What The *#@&" as someone nearly knocks you off counts as reasonable, but chasing them down and swearing directly at them does not.


----------



## thomas (10 May 2011)

Does calling someone a plank for not indicating count as offensive?? If so I better remove my last video


----------



## schlafsack (10 May 2011)

Can I just get this straight? They are not eager or willing to use the videos as evidence to prosecute road traffic incidents, which could result in serious injury or death, but they are quite happy to forward the videos to the CPS because of the swearing? Am I missing something?


----------



## mickle (10 May 2011)

Who's side are these ***** on anyway?


----------



## byegad (10 May 2011)

Surely easy enough to publish the video without any sound? If not substitute a sound track, of none copyright source of course or they'll twist about that too!


----------



## yello (10 May 2011)

schlafsack said:


> Am I missing something?




Well, if you are then I am too because I was about to say pretty much the same thing.

No doubt they are legally correct but what a bizarre use of their time. 

...but, m'lord, I had to run him down, he said bottom.


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2011)

schlafsack said:


> Can I just get this straight? They are not eager or willing to use the videos as evidence to prosecute road traffic incidents, which could result in serious injury or death, but they are quite happy to forward the videos to the CPS because of the swearing? Am I missing something?



They do prosecute some motorists, but not very many. For example, I've only ever had exactly one email of their intention to prosecute a driver. This was the LG02 driver near Victoria who blatantly ran a red pedestrian crossing light. I've submitted many reports, at least 50-100 I would guess.

I wonder how often they actually write letters out of the submissions they do get? I rarely get drivers coming back annoyed about being filmed on the phone, so I wonder if that's a file in bin crime, or is it that I just don't capture enough evidential information for them?


----------



## thomas (10 May 2011)

byegad said:


> Surely easy enough to publish the video without any sound? If not substitute a sound track, of none copyright source of course or they'll twist about that too!



If the Police were to take a case further they'd want to see the full, unedited video...so I guess at that stage they could still increase quotas of people they've done for something. I'd like to say I don't swear much, but I'm sure I've got plenty of videos showing otherwise


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2011)

mickle said:


> Who's side are these ***** on anyway?




Actually, I think Roadsafe are a really good thing. Let's not get too defensive, we've probably all used language we shouldn't have. For the most part they are very professional, and I think do a lot of good for road safety in London. It's easy to lose sight of the positives which far outweigh the negatives.

Whoever it was that said years ago your cameras might convict your own behaviour must be as smug as anything now.


----------



## Origamist (10 May 2011)

schlafsack said:


> Can I just get this straight? They are not eager or willing to use the videos as evidence to prosecute road traffic incidents, which could result in serious injury or death, but they are quite happy to forward the videos to the CPS because of the swearing? Am I missing something?



This gives you some idea of how Roadsafe are handling traffic generated through the website in terms of reports, letters, prosecutions etc:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/efficacy_of_roadsafe_website

Scroll down to the report at the top of their reply from Nov 1st 2010.


----------



## BentMikey (10 May 2011)

...and at least another 1000 reports in the months since that reply.


----------



## gb155 (10 May 2011)

Oh my ****** ***** **** **** **** ****

and you can quote me !


----------



## benb (10 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Actually, I think Roadsafe are a really good thing. Let's not get too defensive, we've probably all used language we shouldn't have. For the most part they are very professional, and I think do a lot of good for road safety in London. It's easy to lose sight of the positives which far outweigh the negatives.
> 
> Whoever it was that said years ago your cameras might convict your own behaviour must be as smug as anything now.



Yes, but they are supposed to be concentrating on dangerous driving. People swearing is outside their remit.


----------



## lit (10 May 2011)

I hope RSL pay just as much attention to writing written warnings to the dangerous drivers - a bit swearing is nothing in comparison.


----------



## mr Mag00 (10 May 2011)

good job they didnt see the rcent thread on here


----------



## Nigeyy (10 May 2011)

C'mon, surely you're winding me up?

If this is true, and as a matter of principle, I'd continue. Then when I'm prosecuted I'd make sure everyone (i.e. media) knew about this and the cost involved -as well as detailing other offenders (football crowd outside a ground anyone? Group of yoofs outside a shopping centre?). I 'd also be ready to swamp them with as many videos on the road of other people swearing as well (bet you could find some good ones).

Ridiculous.

I should add that I really dislike swearing -honestly, I'd be lucky to swear using a couple of words per year (really, not kidding, I just try not to swear, ask my wife!) and I don't care for others swearing either. But really, it this worthy of prosecution -especially when I assume normal behaviour on a bicycle is not to, and usually it's in response to a sometimes life threatening situation? Granted I don't think (for me at least) it's socially acceptable to stand in the middle of a High street and yell obscenities at the top of my voice, but this really isn't that.

Yes, I'd carry on. 




gaz said:


> I got a written warning today which outlines that if any further videos of me using offensive language in a public place then they will forward the video to the CPS for prosecution under the Public Order Act 1984.


----------



## downfader (10 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Actually, I wonder whether their approach on language is at all reasonable? Is it really reasonable to expect perfect behaviour under an intense fight or flight response when your life has just been risked? Is there any sort of defence along these lines? I wonder what Martin Porter says about this?




I think it is a bit rich for them to threaten prosecution. If all those who got these letters could send their club/campaigns (CTC, LCC etc) a copy and let them know whats happening... I'd be interested to know what the CTC's etc thoughts would be on this. I think this should be forwarded to the press.

I'm sure there are many other situations where the victim has exclaimed in shock. In assault, for instance.


----------



## Coco (10 May 2011)

Thankfully we're more enlightened up here


----------



## the_mikey (10 May 2011)

What if you spouted a meaningless stream of words? Next time I get run off the roads I could should 'disco rickets dog biscuits allegedly David plays the drums' , would that detract from the original offence from the motorist?


----------



## fossyant (10 May 2011)

thomas said:


> Does calling someone a plank for not indicating count as offensive?? If so I better remove my last video



Erm, Let's say, even shouting "Oi, look where you are going" can get a torrent of F words in retaliation. One even said if I didn't shut it he'd F'ing break my bones' - all for telling him to look where he was going - pulled out from a side road right into my path.

I'm off to invent a compact, lightweight, exocet system. See ya !


----------



## mog35 (10 May 2011)

the_mikey said:


> What if you spouted a meaningless stream of words? Next time I get run off the roads I could should 'disco rickets dog biscuits allegedly David plays the drums' , would that detract from the original offence from the motorist?



Nice idea, but on the other hand yellow taxi anti-guitar Mornington Crescent fascism. And what about mellotron in-my-face tractor QuornChild? Yoghurt-Stylus.

But it's good to see they're focusing on what's important rather than trivial things like dangerous driving etc

Next time I'm on the receiving end of some dangerous, ill-thought out manoeuvre, I must remember to yell 'crumbs' or 'gosh' or perhaps 'blimey'.

Hopefully the blasphemous provenance of the latter word won't result in Roadsafe reporting me to the local vicar.


----------



## Jim_Noir (10 May 2011)

But: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1296347.stm


----------



## markharry66 (10 May 2011)

Use windows movie maker to edit out the sound comes with most versions of windows and works with Avi and mp4 files and breaks down the moive or Nero they are both F****** s


----------



## gaz (10 May 2011)

I'm not going to edit out what i say. I'm honest about my uploads and what happens to me, i'm not going to lie or hide anything.


----------



## benb (10 May 2011)

OK, I had a look at the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the only relevant section I could find was 154: Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress. Alarm bells immediately sound, as your expletives were not intended to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, but read on:



> (1)A person is guilty of an offence if, *with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress*, he—
> (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
> (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
> 
> ...



My bold.
They are taking the piss.

I would imagine that in any case unless a complaint is made by a passer by at the time, there would be no case to answer, and it really does hinge on intent. 

However, I am not a lawyer &c.


----------



## Bman (10 May 2011)

I bet you its some big headed manager at RSL that doesnt like hearing these words. S/He has heard their employees playing Gaz's videos and has personally taken offence. 

I've worked with these type of people 


Sod them. You had reasonable grounds. I hear the F word far to much, everywhere, but its fair to expect a few when you have nearly been run off the road.


----------



## davefb (10 May 2011)

glad they havent recorded the swear words in my head...

unbelievable...

unbelievable..

i suppose they could just legally have to say something like this,, but on those videos you hear loads of effing from car drivers, are they being prosecuted?

unreal.. maybe the videos for dangerous driving should goto a website like 'the nice words society' who try to stop people swearing in public...


christ , even rooney only got an FA charge, ofcom werent bothered and no coppers arrested him...


----------



## lit (10 May 2011)

> i suppose they could just legally have to say something like this,, but on those videos you hear loads of effing from car drivers, are they being prosecuted?



+1 whoever has got a bee in their bonnet about this seems to be exerting the opinion that it's ok for drivers/whoever to swear at cyclists but when a cyclist swears back......well, talk about rank hypocrisy. I haven't got the link but anyone remember the van driver swearing at gaz when he'd nothing but dare to cycle on the road?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 May 2011)

davefb said:


> i suppose they could just legally have to say something like this,, but on those videos you hear loads of effing from car drivers, are they being prosecuted?


Like this lovely girl for example.


----------



## davehann (10 May 2011)

the trick is to use a new set of swear words.

ie. substitute ''you f==ing t-at you nearly killed me!'' 

with 

'careful and considerate at all times!'

or

''are you f-cking blind, idiot!'' 

becomes 

''mirror, signal, manouvre mate!''

i have found that if you say it with the right intonation they still get your meaning and if you have the right intention behind what you say and say it loudly enough it has the same calming effect on oneslef.


----------



## davefb (10 May 2011)

mind you, i've just been watching some of gaz545 videos , and thats some foul language  [ pretty foul driving as well]


----------



## davefb (10 May 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Like this lovely girl for example.



eeek, i'm gunna have to drive carefully, i'll end up on one of yours


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 May 2011)

davefb said:


> eeek, i'm gunna have to drive carefully, i'll end up on one of yours


I doubt it; you're a cyclist aren't you? I can't imagine you would give me so little space (less than 2 feet) when I'm passing a car that is parked with its nose to the kerb and has its reversing lights on.


----------



## davefb (10 May 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I doubt it; you're a cyclist aren't you? I can't imagine you would give me so little space (less than 2 feet) when I'm passing a car that is parked with its nose to the kerb and has its reversing lights on.



err yeah,, all the time!! ( crosses fingers and makes sure i am attentive  )


blackburn road is mental though... ( just watched your contratemps with the yaris guy  )..


----------



## gaz (10 May 2011)

lit said:


> I haven't got the link but anyone remember the van driver swearing at gaz when he'd nothing but dare to cycle on the road?



You won't find it as i've set it to private. I was getting too many crappy comments on it so decided to just 'remove' it.


----------



## lit (10 May 2011)

Ah right, fair enough, understandable.


----------



## DrSquirrel (11 May 2011)

gaz said:


> Espcially those who report videos to Road Safe London.
> I'm not the first and i'm sure I wont be the last to get a warning from RSL about the use of language.
> 
> I got a written warning today which outlines that if any further videos of me using offensive language in a public place then they will forward the video to the CPS for prosecution under the Public Order Act 1984.
> ...



Next time someone swears at you then, sent RSL a copy of this warning letter along with your report then...


----------



## campbellab (11 May 2011)

If RSL forward those examples to the CPS they would just laugh in their face and tell them to stop wasting their time?


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2011)

I suspect this might be a policital point they are making.

The powers that be don't want member's of the public doing the Police's job, or at least (in their eyes) getting out of hand by becoming too popular?

TBH though, you have to play the game properly if you are going to video.


----------



## Adasta (11 May 2011)

gaz said:


> You won't find it as i've set it to private. I was getting too many crappy comments on it so decided to just 'remove' it.



It would be far more useful for you to upload the video but disable comments. Just because Youtube *can* be a forum for debate, that doesn't mean it *should* (in every situation).

P.S. I saw you at the bottom of Clapham High St this morning wearing your "I Pay Road Tax" maillot. What a dashing figure.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2011)

Adasta said:


> It would be far more useful for you to upload the video but disable comments. Just because Youtube *can* be a forum for debate, that doesn't mean it *should* (in every situation).
> 
> P.S. I saw you at the bottom of Clapham High St this morning wearing your "I Pay Road Tax" maillot. What a dashing figure.



Disabling comments doesn't stop the comments on other videos, i'd rather not fuel the fire.

Hahaha i need to loose a bit around the belly though


----------



## clarion (12 May 2011)

Incredible. <BR><BR>I should say that I saw Gaz on my commute last week. He was effing and blinding at everyone around him, and beating old ladies to death with kittens. Or something. Perhaps that wasn't him, and Gaz was the chap who rode swiftly and safely past me and on towards his work.


----------



## gaz (12 May 2011)

clarion said:


> Incredible. <BR><BR>I should say that I saw Gaz on my commute last week. He was effing and blinding at everyone around him, and beating old ladies to death with kittens. Or something. Perhaps that wasn't him, and Gaz was the chap who rode swiftly and safely past me and on towards his work.


I think I did actually see you a few times last week


----------



## downfader (12 May 2011)

clarion said:


> Incredible. <BR><BR>I should say that I saw Gaz on my commute last week. He was effing and blinding at everyone around him, and beating old ladies to death with kittens. Or something. Perhaps that wasn't him, and Gaz was the chap who rode swiftly and safely past me and on towards his work.




Doesnt Gaz ride naked from the waist down? Whilst singing Jeruselum?


----------



## thomas (12 May 2011)

Sooo, having just read that BBC story about the guy who told the police to f off....maybe you should reply to the letter in a similar manner.

or, return it scrunched up and suggest they stick it up their arse (because, naturally, I would talk to my mother this way which would make it the natural way I talk )


----------



## PBancroft (13 May 2011)

thomas said:


> Sooo, having just read that BBC story about the guy who told the police to f off....maybe you should reply to the letter in a similar manner.
> 
> or, return it scrunched up and suggest they stick it up their arse (because, naturally, I would talk to my mother this way which would make it the natural way I talk )



Whilst I don't think that's a good idea as such, I do wonder if its worth replying, apologising for the choice of words, but asking RSL which they felt was more serious - dangerous, potentially life threatening driving, or bad language.

I suppose the view will be with bad language a tangible offence has been cause to passers by.


----------



## Zoiders (13 May 2011)

If you are filming footage that you may wish to be used in court at some time in the future I am at a loss as to why every bugger insists on publishing it on the internet first.


----------



## gaz (13 May 2011)

Zoiders said:


> If you are filming footage that you may wish to be used in court at some time in the future I am at a loss as to why every bugger insists on publishing it on the internet first.



 We don't.


----------



## Zoiders (13 May 2011)

gaz said:


> We don't.


Could have fooled me.


----------



## Jezston (13 May 2011)

Zoiders said:


> If you are filming footage that you may wish to be used in court at some time in the future I am at a loss as to why every bugger insists on publishing it on the internet first.



Why does that matter?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 May 2011)

Zoiders said:


> If you are filming footage that you may wish to be used in court at some time in the future I am at a loss as to why every bugger insists on publishing it on the internet first.





gaz said:


> We don't.





Zoiders said:


> Could have fooled me.



Really? I've published quite a lot on the internet, but have never yet needed to take anyone to court with one. I think if something happened that I wanted to take to court, I would be saving any publishing until after the court case. Do you have some evidence that "every bugger [sic]" (which I assume is your colloquial way of saying "everyone") is publishing court case video evidence before the case is heard in court?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 May 2011)

Jezston said:


> Why does that matter?



I suppose there could be a possibility that some of the comments posted against the video might prejudice the case perhaps.


----------



## DrSquirrel (13 May 2011)

Jezston said:


> Why does that matter?



Because it can prejudice a case. Police often ask reportees to drop the video if its going to the CPS.

Hence why you sometimes, and sometimes don't see people's faces blurred on TV - if its blurred its ongoing, if not then its been dropped, of they have been done


----------



## gaz (13 May 2011)

Zoiders said:


> Could have fooled me.


I don't talk about a lot of things that I have ongoing and I don't upload videos of everything that happens.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 May 2011)

If you have seen "Repoman" then you will understand "Mellon Farmer" 


LosingFocus said:


> This.
> 
> Or comedy dub them. "Oi, <_fiddlesticks_> you <_daft motherhugger_>" "Learn to drive you <_clucking front_>"
> 
> A bit like this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=WmRTUNh1vPo


----------



## Slim (13 May 2011)

downfader said:


> Doesnt Gaz ride naked from the waist down? Whilst singing Jeruselum?



That explains why the Croydon flyover has been closed this morning. Someone spotted him on the way to work and had a heart attack.


----------



## Vikeonabike (14 May 2011)

benb said:


> OK, I had a look at the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the only relevant section I could find was 154: Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress. Alarm bells immediately sound, as your expletives were not intended to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, but read on:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Unfortunately thats Section 4A, which has to be intentional. Section 5 on the other hand doesn't require any intention. Somebody within earshot just has to be alarmed, Harrassed or Distressed.


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 May 2011)

Bullsh*t. [edit: not in reply to Vike, but at the SRL in the OP in general]

Have the SRL never heard of the concept of 'context'?

A cyclist almost gets mown down by a pathetic excuse for a vehicle operator, and the cyclist (in the heat of the moment) spurts a few choice expletives.........

Go for it, and let's see who looks the tosser in court, cos I swear at cars a LOT - because they ENDANGER MY LIFE with their sh*t driving.

Prior to the incidents I am calm and enjoying the ride, muppet tries to run me down, so I swear as a reaction.


----------



## 400bhp (14 May 2011)

I agree, it's BS.

Think about how many times you lip read footballers' swearing.

But, as intimated earlier, I think they [SRL] have an agenda.


----------



## BGRT (14 May 2011)

Judging by this thread, swearing should be the least of their worries.


----------



## classic33 (14 May 2011)

Recently been informed by two members of West Yorkshire Police that any evidence gained/gathered by use of such cameras cannot be used as evidence.
Reason they gave was that the pictures are not clear enough for identification purposes.


----------



## BentMikey (14 May 2011)

classic33 said:


> Recently been informed by two members of West Yorkshire Police that any evidence gained/gathered by use of such cameras cannot be used as evidence.
> Reason they gave was that the pictures are not clear enough for identification purposes.



Is a boll0cks opinion, since it already has been used as evidence.


----------



## 400bhp (14 May 2011)

classic33 said:


> Recently been informed by two members of West Yorkshire Police that any evidence gained/gathered by use of such cameras cannot be used as evidence.
> Reason they gave was that the pictures are not clear enough for identification purposes.



They have an IQ < 100.


----------



## gaz (14 May 2011)

classic33 said:


> Recently been informed by two members of West Yorkshire Police that any evidence gained/gathered by use of such cameras cannot be used as evidence.
> Reason they gave was that the pictures are not clear enough for identification purposes.



that might be true of some of the really dodgy chinese cameras that are badly mounted and the image is unclear. But looking at even the muvi type of cameras the quality is certainly good enough for use in court.
And some of us are using HD cameras where the quality is second to none.


----------



## BentMikey (14 May 2011)

Of course there are warnings to camera users and Roadsafe reporters that drivers can want some comeback on you:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtNLbtUxTy0




> you sad ****er , next time i will run you over . get a ****ing life , if not a car . i will be keeping an eye out for you around bigginhill , you and i are going to﻿ have WORDS (dickhead) .
> 
> nedmobile



Threatening to run me and my two year old over? Nice.


----------



## rusky (14 May 2011)

Can't wait to see the police response to his comment! What a numpty!


----------



## BSRU (14 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Of course there are warnings to camera users and Roadsafe reporters that drivers can want some comeback on you:
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UtNLbtUxTy0
> 
> ...



I was wondering, with such a direct threat, would the Police do anything about it, if you were a celebrity they would.

I have noticed comments are disabled on his channel.


----------



## gaz (14 May 2011)

By the way, i should add that i have spoken to an officer at RSL about this. And he has assured me that the driving will be considered before they issue a warning or forward the video to the CPS.

For example, if someone overtakes you just before a set of lights and brakes, there isn't much need to shout and swear at them. Just stay behind them and get on with it and make a fool of them on the internet.
But if someone literally nearly knocks you of the road and nearly kills you, then a few words here and there as a first reaction are fine but if we start to swear and shout at them after that it's too much.

I'm perfectly happy about that, it's not often i swear at drivers and it will only be a few situations where i might need to watch my tongue.


----------



## classic33 (14 May 2011)

gaz said:


> that might be true of some of the really dodgy chinese cameras that are badly mounted and the image is unclear. But looking at even the muvi type of cameras the quality is certainly good enough for use in court.
> And some of us are using HD cameras where the quality is second to none.




One of the current cameras is the same as that in use with West Yorkshire Police. So i'm alittle puzzled as to how they'd go with camera evidence.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (14 May 2011)

classic33 said:


> Recently been informed by two members of West Yorkshire Police that any evidence gained/gathered by use of such cameras cannot be used as evidence.
> Reason they gave was that the pictures are not clear enough for identification purposes.


It is disappointing that police officers are making such ill-informed statements. As has already been said, such evidence has already been used in court. In most cases, the video footage is used to support other evidence such as eye-witness testimony.

It is also important to distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings. Criminal proceedings require proof beyiond reasonable doubt, which is difficult. In civil proceedings, especially in relation to RTIs, video can be useful to counter untruthful statements by the other party, or faulty testimony from eye-witnesses (which is notoriously unreliable, especially regarding timings and sequences of events).


----------



## Jezston (15 May 2011)

Quite. What a ridiculous thing to say. Sad to see there seems to be so many police officers out there inclined to side with bad drivers, because they are probably that type themselves.

As their duty prosecutor what they think about such camera evidence.


----------



## Gandalf (15 May 2011)

It is only when you have to make a complaint to the police that you realise how entrenched the 'divine rights of drivers' attitude really is. 

I'm not in a position to go into detail just now, but in a recent conversation with a police operator she questioned why I uploaded videos to Youtube and reported drivers for illegal mobile phone use because 'lots of people do it'.

I assume she was a civilian operator in a call centre, but even so.


----------



## Tinuts (15 May 2011)

Jezston said:


> Quite. What a ridiculous thing to say. Sad to see there seems to be so many police officers out there inclined to side with bad drivers, because they are probably that type themselves.
> 
> As their duty prosecutor what they think about such camera evidence.




I would suggest that the somewhat ignorant reactions displayed by certain members of the Police Force have to do rather more with the fact that, by consistently publishing instances of bad driving (as many helmet-cam wearers do), we are actually highlighting how ineffectual Police have been in reducing such behaviour - and they don't like it.

On a slightly different tack, much has been made this week of the fact that fines for motoring offences are being increased. I doubt that this will have any effect in reducing bad behaviour on the roads as the main reason errant motorists break the law is because they can be pretty sure of getting away with it. As there are fewer Police than ever now patrolling the streets I think we can be certain that this state of affairs will continue with all sorts of road users flouting the law.

If, however, the Police were to actively encourage more people to present video and photographic evidence then we may actually get somewhere towards ensuring more responsible behaviour on our roads. I don't think RoadSafe effectively encourages this as only a small percentage of people actually know of their existence, and, tbh, when RS appear to think that writing letters to cyclists complaining about language used in the heat of battle is an effective use of resources then one has to ask where their priorities actually lie. 

I know a number of cyclists who have been knocked off their bikes by motorists but, so far, no motorists who have been knocked off their drivers seat by a cyclist - or even a (usually) well deserved swear word.


----------



## Tinuts (15 May 2011)

Gandalf said:


> I assume she was a civilian operator in a call centre, but even so.



Yes, still paid for by your and my rates though.

Dismal!


----------



## Gandalf (15 May 2011)

Tinuts said:


> I would suggest that the somewhat ignorant reactions displayed by certain members of the Police Force have to do rather more with the fact that, by consistently publishing instances of bad driving (as many helmet-cam wearers do), we are actually highlighting how ineffectual Police have been in reducing such behaviour - and they don't like it.
> 
> On a slightly different tack, much has been made this week of the fact that fines for motoring offences are being increased. I doubt that this will have any effect in reducing bad behaviour on the roads as the main reason errant motorists break the law is because they can be pretty sure of getting away with it. As there are fewer Police than ever now patrolling the streets I think we can be certain that this state of affairs will continue with all sorts of road users flouting the law.
> 
> ...




I think you may well be onto something there. The thousands of videos on Youtube cannot fail to make the policing of our roads look impotent. 

In a recent conversation with a police officer I was 'strongly advised' to desist from filming errant drivers and uploading the footage and that I should 'leave it to the police'.

The officer went on to say that if I witnessed a driver using a hand held mobile whilst driving I should contact the police and let them deal with it.

Call me old fashioned but with current policing levels in London would there really be any point in making at least ten reports every day?

I would imagine the most likely outcome would be me being done for wasting police time.


----------



## Origamist (15 May 2011)

Tinuts said:


> On a slightly different tack, much has been made this week of the fact that fines for motoring offences are being increased. I doubt that this will have any effect in reducing bad behaviour on the roads as the main reason errant motorists break the law is because they can be pretty sure of getting away with it. As there are fewer Police than ever now patrolling the streets I think we can be certain that this state of affairs will continue with all sorts of road users flouting the law.



I believe traffic police numbers have fallen by 20% over the last decade...


----------



## Tinuts (15 May 2011)

Gandalf said:


> In a recent conversation with a police officer I was 'strongly advised' to desist from filming errant drivers and uploading the footage and that I should 'leave it to the police'.



Yes, leave it to the Police to do what, exactly? At the moment the most time-effective way to report this is via the under-publicised RoadSafe site. As they rarely, if ever, inform complainants of the actions they've taken as a result of the complaint we are left none the wiser and, frankly, with little incentive to make further complaints. Letters about language used don't exactly act as any encouragement either.




Gandalf said:


> The officer went on to say that if I witnessed a driver using a hand held mobile whilst driving I should contact the police and let them deal with it.



This is almost comical. As a society we appear to have descended into a way of thinking where members of that society are discouraged from challenging antisocial behaviour because there will be some kind of Dixon-of-Dock-Green-Long-Arm-of-the-Law response which will magically sort it out. This is patent nonsense, as we all know, and just encourages an attitude of "It's not my problem, mate" or "I don't want to get involved"; any obligation for citizens to actually behave in a citizen-type way is negated. I've visited countries where, if someone behaves antisocially in public then they *will* (most likely) be challenged.

In the latest of the (extremely rare) replies I've had from RoadSafe I was advised: 

_For your own safety I would advise against taking issue with drivers __personally__._ 

So much for the Big Society, eh?



Gandalf said:


> Call me old fashioned but with current policing levels in London would there really be any point in making at least ten reports every day?
> 
> I would imagine the most likely outcome would be me being done for wasting police time.



Ha ha! No, but you'd certainly be wasting *your* time. Life is too short!


----------



## downfader (15 May 2011)

Gandalf said:


> I think you may well be onto something there. The thousands of videos on Youtube cannot fail to make the policing of our roads look impotent.
> 
> In a recent conversation with a police officer I was 'strongly advised' to desist from filming errant drivers and uploading the footage and that I should 'leave it to the police'.
> 
> ...



I have just sent an email to the Indi Letters page this afternoon on this very subject - we need more Police and theres no way around it. The taxpayer will indeed now have to suck up the cost of past failure, and we as society have let it slip just as much as the authorities.

If the Police have failed people then they need to raise this issue with third parties like road safety charities, the press and shame the system giving examples.



Origamist said:


> I believe traffic police numbers have fallen by 20% over the last decade...




I have been told, unofficially, that it is more in Hants and other counties. Something like 40% reduction in the last 10 years, with a few PCSOs thrown in instead to do lesser duties. Any official figures online of the true impact?


----------



## thomas (15 May 2011)

Gandalf said:


> It is only when you have to make a complaint to the police that you realise how entrenched the 'divine rights of drivers' attitude really is.
> *
> I'm not in a position to go into detail just now, but in a recent conversation with a police operator she questioned why I uploaded videos to Youtube and reported drivers for illegal mobile phone use because 'lots of people do it'.
> *
> I assume she was a civilian operator in a call centre, but even so.




It took me 10 minutes to explain that yes, some forms of traffic lights allow both pedestrians and cyclists...and that the Police telling people to push along a cycle path, which had just had been widened with these newer traffic lights installed (at a massive expense no doubt) was stupid and going to detract from people using these new facilities.


----------



## Adasta (15 May 2011)

downfader said:


> I have been told, unofficially, that it is more in Hants and other counties. Something like 40% reduction in the last 10 years, with a few PCSOs thrown in instead to do lesser duties. Any official figures online of the true impact?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351107/Police-numbers-fall-2-500-volunteer-levels-rise.html


----------



## campbellab (15 May 2011)

Face it, we're not going to get any more police soon, and certainly not traffic police, best you can hope for is more PCSOs able to do traffic offences?


----------



## Jezston (15 May 2011)

campbellab said:


> Face it, we're not going to get any more police soon, and certainly not traffic police, best you can hope for is more PCSOs able to do traffic offences?



Are there PSCO cars or motorbikes?


----------



## ufkacbln (15 May 2011)

Jezston said:


> Are there PSCO cars or motorbikes?



There are cyclists!

I watched an article about a "Community Speedwatch" where local residents were using a speed gun and reporting speeding motorists. They would then get a letter based on this report. Two letters and the official warning was made.


We could easily start a similar personal cam based system.


----------



## downfader (15 May 2011)

Adasta said:


> http://www.dailymail...evels-rise.html




I think I saw that a while back. I have no problem with Specials, in the main they have the same powers and responsibilities.

Back on topic.. I wonder how the Police would see videos like this below. This guy subbed me on YT recently. I'm not particularly impressed... though with the UPS vid I can definately say I feel his frustration. 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bCbcoKuSr4


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkn17gL7_oM


----------



## rusky (15 May 2011)

Why bother posting a video of yourself breaking the law?? Especially as there are so many people trying to campaign for safer roads


----------



## Jezston (15 May 2011)

downfader said:


> I think I saw that a while back. I have no problem with Specials, in the main they have the same powers and responsibilities.
> 
> Back on topic.. I wonder how the Police would see videos like this below. This guy subbed me on YT recently. I'm not particularly impressed... though with the UPS vid I can definately say I feel his frustration.
> 
> ...



Wow, that guy is an utter penis.


----------



## Tinuts (15 May 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> There are cyclists!
> 
> I watched an article about a "Community Speedwatch" where local residents were using a speed gun and reporting speeding motorists. They would then get a letter based on this report. Two letters and the official warning was made.
> 
> We could easily start a similar personal cam based system.



A nice idea but such an enterprise could quite easily turn into a very time consuming and possibly stressful affair. I was in communication with the owner of a site specifically set up to report bad driving. It was a great site but he eventually abandoned the project just because of these reasons.

Far better would be the implementation of effective RoadSafe-type operations around the country which allowed contributors to upload relevant video. This would be accompanied by an effective feedback system involving RoadSafe operatives acknowledging the actions they've taken as a result of reports submitted. This would help increase complainants' confidence that such a system can actually be effective in reducing bad behaviour on the road. Ultimately, it is that confidence - that complaints made by individuals actually result in appropriate actions being taken by Police - that will help build a robust system. Currently, imho, there is no such visibly effective operation in place.


----------



## benb (16 May 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Unfortunately thats Section 4A, which has to be intentional. Section 5 on the other hand doesn't require any intention. Somebody within earshot just has to be alarmed, Harrassed or Distressed.



Section 5 is part of the Public Order Act 1986, which was not the act they referred to.

Section 5 is "Contamination of or interference with goods with intention of causing public alarm or anxiety"

Again, note intention. Also, this section is all about contamination of goods, such as putting poison into milk cartons &c. so has nothing to do with swearing.

Or is there another section I have been unable to locate?

And even if someone within earshot only has to be alarmed, harassed, or distressed, without testimony from said passerby that they were indeed alarmed, harassed, or distressed, the CPS have no grounds to proceed. Am I wrong?


----------



## benb (16 May 2011)

Oh wait, I found it. It's still part of the Public Order Act 1986, not 1984 as in the original letter.



> Harassment, alarm or distress.
> (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
> (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
> (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
> ...



I really can't see how the CPS could proceed without a compaint or testimony from someone who heard it at the time, saying that they were alarmed, harassed, or distressed.

Video of someone swearing is not evidence of an offence, as there is no evidence that anyone else heard it!
Also, not defence of reasonable conduct.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (16 May 2011)

downfader said:


> I think I saw that a while back. I have no problem with Specials, in the main they have the same powers and responsibilities.
> 
> Back on topic.. I wonder how the Police would see videos like this below. *This guy subbed me on YT recently. I'm not particularly impressed*... though with the UPS vid I can definately say I feel his frustration.
> 
> ...




The guy's an idiot. See this one too... blazing round cars and through red lights with people crossing. Complete tool!


----------



## BentMikey (16 May 2011)

He's a bus driver, it seems.


----------



## abo (16 May 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> There are cyclists!
> 
> I watched an article about a "Community Speedwatch" where local residents were using a speed gun and reporting speeding motorists. They would then get a letter based on this report. Two letters and the official warning was made.
> 
> ...



Big deal, what happens after the official warning?


----------



## downfader (16 May 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> The guy's an idiot. See this one too... blazing round cars and through red lights with people crossing. Complete tool!




Missed that one. The guy's a c***. Tempted to post it in crimestoppers.  If he comes a cropper by riding like that I wont hold any sympathy.


----------



## BSRU (16 May 2011)

downfader said:


> Missed that one. The guy's a c***. Tempted to post it in crimestoppers.  If he comes a cropper by riding like that I wont hold any sympathy.



He deserve a visit from the local Police, he's a danger to other road users.


----------



## BentMikey (16 May 2011)

If anyone feels strongly enough about him, you could do a bit of digging and find out which bus company he works for (probably Nat Express), and shop him to his employers and the council.


----------



## downfader (16 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> If anyone feels strongly enough about him, you could do a bit of digging and find out which bus company he works for (probably Nat Express), and shop him to his employers and the council.




I read through his comments and his text on there but didnt come up with anything the other day. I'm doubtful but just in case have posted the link to crimestoppers as I cant figure out which area he's from. They'll prolly pass it on. Tempted to send the damn link to the press too.


----------



## Norm (16 May 2011)

I wonder if his user name is his registration number. 

I was thinking that few people would be silly enough to do that but, then again, if he drives a Ford Fiesta Ghia 5 door 16v, then he just might be. 

I thought it funny that the first time he takes a good look behind himself, at around 2:40, he does it when heading straight towards a junction with a car waiting to pull out from the left. That's one time I'd be looking forward, not the first time I'd be checking back.

From the shops and everything, he appeared to be around Smethwick in the West Midlands, but that's just because he goes past this place at around 3:56.

He has an impressive turn of speed but I spent most of the 7:10 of that video waiting for the bang.


----------



## classic33 (16 May 2011)

If it is National express, Howabout a phonecall to their operations manager. A Mr O'Toole. Lives not too far away from me.


----------



## Jezston (17 May 2011)

One of his vids (of him riding the wrong way round a one way system!) has one of his mates facing the camera at the beginning, and it looks like it starts at a bus depot. Shouldn't be hard for his employer to work out who he is from that?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 May 2011)

Can't see his employers being able to do anything about it. He's not driving at the time and is, effectively, doing it in his own time. The only time they could legitimately do something (I would think) is if he was doing it and openly bringing his Employer's company into disrepute... but as we are all unsure exactly who/where he works you could hardly claim that.

He is a full on knob-sack though, and no mistake.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 May 2011)

Riding at that (admittedly decent) speed right in the door zone.

That's going to hurt.

A lot.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 May 2011)

He's subbed to my YouTube channel this morning.. probably after the comment I left on his yesterday... for his video entitled "The Chase" I commented: 

"What are you chasing? The award for worst riding by any chance? Overtaking at traffic lights, blazing through reds, squeezing past moving vehicles and cutting them up, riding on the pavement... the list is long. Well done you for making cyclists look like arrogant tossers."


----------



## benb (17 May 2011)

IMO, I found the perfect response to this sort of behaviour, by MikeStan on this YT clip (all comments, then about half way down).



> people like you are the reason I keep having to defend being a cyclist rather than celebrating it.


----------



## downfader (17 May 2011)

TheMadCyclist said:


> It starts at this place : Bus Station
> 
> Looks like he works for national express.




And if you spin the camera around you see this:

My link


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 May 2011)

Ah that was you  The comment brought a smile to my face.


Sh4rkyBloke said:


> He's subbed to my YouTube channel this morning.. probably after the comment I left on his yesterday... for his video entitled "The Chase" I commented:
> 
> "What are you chasing? The award for worst riding by any chance? Overtaking at traffic lights, blazing through reds, squeezing past moving vehicles and cutting them up, riding on the pavement... the list is long. Well done you for making cyclists look like arrogant tossers."


----------

