Malicious prosecution of civic minded cyclist or what?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
'Signals to a van driver to stop then asks car driver why he's on his phone ' who does this fella think he is?

Film it and report it if this is what gets you stiff but why think you're a traffic copper?
 
It isn't the police deciding to prosecute then the CPS stopping it because both are involved early on.
 
Yes it's only the police who a driver has to stop for but if they choose to stop for someone else they can. Did the cyclist really stop the van driver or did the van driver stop to interact with nthe cyclist?
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
No, it's a specific offence.

Careless and inconsiderate cycling.​

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

Then in this case, the Law is an ass :sad:

edit... and still incredibly vague.
 
Last edited:

Jameshow

Veteran
'Signals to a van driver to stop then asks car driver why he's on his phone ' who does this fella think he is?

Film it and report it if this is what gets you stiff but why think you're a traffic copper?

Why because it could be your child who is mowed down by a mobile addicted driver....

If someone is casing up bikes to knick I suppose you walk on by and say it's not my bike?
 
Why because it could be your child who is mowed down by a mobile addicted driver....

If someone is casing up bikes to knick I suppose you walk on by and say it's not my bike?

No one was 'casing up' anything and the van driver was just going about his day.

As I've said already, film the phone user and report them if that's your thing but why think you are some kind of police officer?
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
same reason you're asking me about driving without due care and attention, possibly?

I was pointing out that the 'vagueness' that you determined made the law an ass was substantially the same as the law for another type of road users (and used thousands of times every year) Sorry if that was unclear.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
I was pointing out that the 'vagueness' that you determined made the law an ass was substantially the same as the law for another type of road users (and used thousands of times every year) Sorry if that was unclear.

I get that both 'laws' are vague... so vague in fact that they don't define anything specific, which was my initial point in asking Steve which law had been broken.

What we appear to have in the OP is a copper with a grudge against a cyclist with a camera. On the upside, the charge was dropped.
 

Jameshow

Veteran
No one was 'casing up' anything and the van driver was just going about his day.

As I've said already, film the phone user and report them if that's your thing but why think you are some kind of police officer?

Illegally going about his day just like the thief!!

It was a illustration!
 
Top Bottom