We all support the police. Don’t we? I mean you do, don’t you?

In fact it depends. I would happily still throttle the pair who seemed to think they were Starsky and Hutch and who tried to “book” an 18 year old novice monk Gildas for obstructing the traffic when his first, and somewhat dodgy, jalopy broke down in a violent thunderstorm (water in the electrics), as well as the bumptious little git who threatened to book me stopping on a zig zag when I had pulled over to ask him for directions a few months ago. On the other hand, to the smart female PC who let me off a naughty but completely innocent motoring offence and gave me a serious talking to and a practical lesser penalty on the spot, “fair play”, as our footballers would have it. If a riot kicks off I shall be in the fight to help her out, should it be necessary. Or at least make the tea whilst she does the fighting.

It is interesting, by the way, how all these are incidents all motor car related – surely the most common way in which the boys and girls in blue get to interact with usually law abiding Joe Public.

So when  a slightly bumptious Plod who doesn’t really know his job gets it all wrong, well I can’t help but smile a bit. This is what happened when one PC Stout (oh yes!) met a smart arsed barrack room lawyer cyclist who had – allegedly – just run a red light. The video seems to have been around for a while, but for some reason has popped up in various parts of the press in the past couple of days, and was drawn to my attention on Radio 2 today. The cyclist was wearing a head cam, of course. Now, running a red light is no laughing matter and can be dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians.  But I as I say I couldn’t resist as smile as the somewhat bemused constable gets it all so spectacularly wrong.

I apologise for the dramatic and tendentious graphics, by the way. It is not my video. And it is quite possible that many will find the cyclist an annoying little prick. In fact rather than some great State sponsored conspiracy we have a constable way out of depth.  But on a serious note, some may say that is almost as worrying.

Now, not that I am an expert in criminal procedure, but having done a bit of asking around, here are some of what I believe are the mistakes:

• “ID COPPLAN” which the policeman refers to as justifying a power of arrest is not a law at all. It is a guidance code which helps officers to decide whether to make an arrest or not.

• Being unnecessarily aggressive is not helpful. Calm authority and listening to what Joe Public has to say before making a decision is.

• The constable failed to issue a caution before he spoke to the cyclist. As I understand it under PACE (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and associated Codes of Practice), whilst there is no actual requirement that an interview before actual arrest must be conducted under caution, although once arrested a caution is mandatory. However, if it was in the policeman’s mind that he was intending or considering issuing a penalty then my understanding is that he should have done so as a rule of best practice in the form prescribed by stature: “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”So the cyclist was right; he did not have to answer the questions about the offence at all. Certainly once that issue was raised by the cyclist the constable should have “read him his rights”. And told him what the position was. He didn’t seem to know.

• He is a cyclist not a motorist. He does not have any documents to produce. “Sigh”.

• What the policeman should have said is: Alright, SIR (*sneer*) I want to issue you or may want to issue you with a summons for busting the red light and ask for a name and address. If he failed to provide a name and address he could then be arrested under section 24 or 25 of PACE (I am not sure which but I am sure our dear readers will clarify). The policeman seems to grope towards this, but in much the same way as I grope towards my shopping list when I have left it at home and I am in the supermarket two days later, i.e. incompetently. Er carrots….no…er….?

• Suspects are entitled to record an interview just as much as the police are required to at the police station. He has no right to manhandle the camera or the suspect. If a policeman approaches me and says that he wants to speak to me there is no law which says that I am not perfectly entitled to keep my camera helmet on, or indeed say: Yes, officer, but I wish to record this interview for my own protection and his. I do not see any reason why the policeman can arrest me for the short delay whilst I get my camera phone out start recorded. They record – you can record.

• He has not arrested the cyclist at that stage when he goes for the camera. He is not entitled to touch him and restrain him unless he had stated that he was arresting him, or in self defence, or to prevent a crime. “The merest touching is a battery”, as the phrase of the common law goes. That was an unlawful act and an assault.

It seems inexperienced and not too bright policemen are being let out without the faintest idea of what the basic law is.  The cyclist may have been an annoying little sod, but he has his rights.  All in all, if policemen are going to stop and threaten to hand out penalties it might be useful if they know what they are doing and don’t get upset if Joe Public asks broadly the right questions. Who is training these people? How?  If they do not know this then what other mistakes will they make?

I bet he had been on all sorts of PC race and gender awareness courses. Pity no one told him how to deal with a smart arse and what his lawful powers were.

On a lighter note, however, it did remind me of one of the great scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Can you guess which one…?.

Here is a clue:

“Shut up! Shut up! Bloody peasant!”

“Argh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”

 Gildas the Monk

fake January 20, 2012 at 15:15

If I see a red light, and no cars or a “safe” gap I can get through I will
go through it.

If it was possible I would erect sails on my bike that could capture the
hatred that this generates, I would easily break the sound barrier, instead I
just have to console myself with a smug feeling, the satisfaction of pissing
people off warms me up in winter.

A handy tip is to keep your keys on a clip, in your pocket. That way when a
particularly impatient driver (All of them), beeps at me or tries cutting me
up, I can readily whip my keys out and scratch his car when he gets stuck at
the traffic lights.

It’s rather annoying though, sometimes a whole month will go by without
someone giving me an excuse to vandalise their property!

But cycles are serious business, many people here seem to believe in
regulating them, I completely agree, you shouldn’t be able to drive like a
selfish prick until you have a license. My kid wants a bike for Christmas, I
shall be sending him on a 4 week intensive training course, and of course he
will have to get a paper round or something to pay for his cycle license, and
of course I will have to see about some kind of accessory that can be attached
to the bike to carry his identification papers.

Maybe if children want bikes we should chip them (the kids, not the
bikes)?

SadButMadLad
January 24, 2012 at 23:20

A bit late, but I’ve only just got my t’internet connection back and am
catching up.

I too jump red lights, though I do at a safe speed when I can see the
other side of the road works.

And haven been a regular cyclist I actually drive quite close beside them
when passing and don’t dawdle behind the cyclist until a gap in the traffic
means I can drive fully on the other side of the road to pass them which
creates a huge queue of pissed off car drivers. When I do drive by, I’ve
checked the road ahead for likely pot holes, judged the cyclist’s
proficiency and then drive by slowly so as not surprise the cyclist. I give
a wide berth for “professional” cyclists as opposed to “amateur” cyclists
because they tend to weave more as their high performance wheels are more
sensitive to bumps in the road, plus they tend to ride two abreast.

A cyclist has just as much right to use the road as a car driver and
pedestrians too. All camps have their stupid ones who should have the Darwin
award.

Zaphod January 20, 2012 at 07:41

Members of the public cannot be screened for assholeness before being
allowed out. It’s not remotely practical to do so.

Paid officials in uniform though, they should be, surely? The more they are
caught on camera, the more the standards will improve.

Can I humbly reccommend this vid?

http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-01-14T11:55:00Z&max-results=3

MTG January 19, 2012 at 18:06

You cannot watch the video without giving fleeting consideration to the
possibility that PC Dumber is a smart collaborator. As you determine the
authenticity of the scene, the real target for the subsequent ‘stop and act
silly’ manipulation, becomes apparent. It is an embarrassing recording of the
victim’s atrocious amateurism and ignorance of the law. Toe-curling as it is
to watch an inept officer failing to act decisively, PC Dumber finally gifts
the camera with a memorable encore in the form of an assault.

Most new police recruits are incapable of firing up 400 grammes of brain
tissue to have applied for the job in the first place. A handicap making the
ritual post-acceptance lobotomy, a cut too far in public services.

The
Travelling Toper January 19, 2012 at
14:47

If you read the original post ( Captain Ranty last March I think) the
cyclist comes across as a quite reasonable person and even praises the
constable for the work he does for young cyclists in the local community.

Richard B January
19, 2012 at 13:14

Watch, as two tits collide.

Nah, the video had gone by the time I got to it. But to be honest, and
based on experience as a car driver, motorcyclist and (one-time) serious
cyclist, I would say that the cyclist was in the wrong purely by being a
cyclist and this is compounded to a factor of n because he is a
smartass lawyer as well.

Rules of the road for everyone, or for none. I’ll take either, but make
your mind up.

M Barnes January 19, 2012 at 11:42

How annoying is that cyclist? And WHAT a drama queen with the graphics –
hardly an orwellian plot to suppress the upstanding, freedom loving cycling
population. They may take our lives but they’ll never take our freedom
to:
run red lights
jump onto the pavement at will
use pedestrians as
mobile chicane markers
move up the inside of a line of traffic
turn any
way we want without signalling
cycle in dark clothing with no lights at
night
knock over pedestrians too slow to jump out of the way…………

binao January 19, 2012 at 14:06

Agreed.
Made my teeth hurt to watch.
What what an ar****le of a
cyclist.
He could have put his hands up, smiled, and gone on his way. If
he wanted to make a point he could have made a formal complaint.
And yes,
that policeman does need a refresher on his training.
Presumably now
every local cyclist who looks like he’s the same bloke and bike will be up
for capture (within the law) by the local force.
Shamefully, I dream of
this cyclist being found on a train without correct ticket, argueing legal
points with the ticket inspector, train held up, beefy passenger…….. You
know the rest.

Pompey Cowboy
January 19, 2012 at 19:38

Agreed,
I can remember being stopped on my mcycle for speeding and
straight away they told me I was getting a ticket and I was cautioned — I
answered their questions politely and agreed I had been speeding ( I had—
whats the point in lying, just makes u look like a tosser or Lib Dem) and
apologised. I listened to what the traffic officer had to say, and there
wasnt much I could say — I had been speeding. I was quite prepared to
accept the ticket— but anyway they had a change of heart after several
minutes sent me on my way without a ticket!

mikebravo
January 20, 2012 at 07:59

A ticket for speeding on a bicycle?
They were winding you
up.
Did they have a calibrated speed gun or did you go through a
photograph radar trap?
Get a grip!

Joe Public January 19, 2012 at 11:31

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not the individual mentioned in this
piece.

IMHO cyclists have too much of a free ride. If they want to use roads, they
should have to buy a Road Fund Licence. Annually. And be forced to display
it.

mikebravo January 19, 2012 at 11:47

I as a cyclist and car owner already pay 2 lots of car tax.
When I am
on my bike and my cars are on my drive the tax is still paid.
Should
pedestrians pay a pavement tax?
Should people sitting in their gardens
pay an air tax?

mmw January 19, 2012 at 12:23

Jeebus. Not this old chestnut! I own a car and a bike. I pay VED on my
car based on its emissions. I also have a job ergo I’m a tax payer. Road
funding is paid from general and local taxation. Sometimes, I choose to ride
to work on my bike other times, I use my car.

Thornavis January 19, 2012 at 15:14

Be forced to display it where on the bike ? OK now how do you identify
said bike and its owner if there isn’t one, a registration system ? OK so
now you’ve added a whole new layer of bureaucracy and public employees to
the system, smart move. That’s before you’ve got to the problem of how you
enforce this in the face of certain mass disregard, you might as well try to
tax and licence wheelbarrows.

Mickey Red
January 23, 2012 at 13:22

As I understand it there is no such thing as ‘Road Tax’, it is a Vehicle
Excise Duty which is zero for some classes of car and rises based on engine
capacity unless exempt. The roads are paid for out of general taxation not
‘Vehicle Excise Duty’

WinstonSmith
January 23, 2012 at 14:09

Nobody pays Road Fund Licence, it is Vehicle Excise Duty and as a cyclist
I pay the same VED as a Band A vehicle owner. Also cyclists have a RIGHT to
use the road whereas motorists don’t. Motorists are LICENCED to use the road
subject to various terms and conditions, e.g. competency, insurance,
roadworthy vehicle. Removing RIGHTS is never a good thing. I agree both the
cyclist and police officer in the video are idiots.

mmw January 19, 2012 at 11:21

You can still see the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z41pqnWFWew

Simon
Proctor January 19, 2012 at 12:28

Cheers. Watched about a minute. Couldn’t stand any more quite
frankly.

The Cop is a officious little tit and the cyclist is an annoying little
tit. Hopefully I’ll never have to meet either of them in my daily
travails.

Michael January 19, 2012 at 21:40

hehe +1

Simon
Proctor January 19, 2012 at 11:11

Well I’d love to see the video and comment but it’s been taken down. I’ve
got little time though for cyclists who think the rules of the road don’t
apply to them though. I’ve been run down by a cyclist who ran a red light when
I was crossing at a green man. And while driving I ran into a cyclist when I
pulled out from a side street.
I was most worried and wondered how I’d
missed him, then realised the little git had been driving the wrong way down a
one way street. And he took my number plate off.
So it’s probably a good
thing I couldn’t watch the video.

JuliaM January 19,
2012 at 11:07

“The cyclist may have been an annoying little sod…”

There’s no ‘may’ about it. He committed an offence. The police officer’s
ineptness doesn’t excuse that.

And, quite frankly, I find his sneering attitude little better (for simply
being more intelligible) than the usual tooth-sucking, crotch-fondling
subhuman grunts of the many urban yoof seen arguing with the police on various
fly on the wall documentaries….

JimS January 19, 2012 at 12:40

Exactly.

How can we complain that the feral youth have no respect for authority
when people who should be setting an example act no differently?

As an aside, can anyone seriously argue that if the bike had been
invented today that it would be allowed on the roads let alone the
pavements?

Thornavis
January 19, 2012 at 15:08

A silly argument, bikes aren’t allowed on the pavement anyway the fact
that the law is rarely enforced doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

JimS January 19, 2012 at 17:44

The bike was a 19th century invention – the poor man’s horse. Just as
the horse isn’t compatible with modern road traffic neither is the
bike.

Horses, bikes, roller skates, skateboards, Segways are recreational
toys and that is how they should be used. The later three are not
allowed on the road and the first two are only there by historic
convention.

The bike is a great gallumping piece of blacksmith’s hardware that
can’t even stand up by itself. It gets parked outside and stolen and the
cost paid for by non-bike owning householder’s insurance policies.

On the road the bike takes up a disproportionate amount of road
space, clogging up bus lanes, tripping bus gate traffic lights and
generally fouling up traffic. Once abandoned it clutters the pavements
as it herds with others around any convenient bit of street furniture,
often completely blocking the pavement.

Bikes are equally incompatible with pedestrians being too fast, too
quiet and unable to stop or change direction quickly enough. As to not
being allowed on pavements what are those blue signs with bike symbols
on supposed to mean? Or those strange bike symbols painted on the
pavement?

Rather than get rid of these archaic devices our stupid politicians
make laws to encourage their use. Can there be anything more stupid than
bike contra-flow lanes on one way streets? Shared use pavements must
come close. Off the road and off the pavement please.

John77
January 19, 2012 at 18:31

The bicycle takes up less road space per passenger than a car. The
rest of the rant is almost as ridiculous. Householders get the option
as to whether or not they insure their family’s bicycles, so
non-bike-owning households do not pay for bikes stolen from other
households. Bikes, in the hands of a competent rider, can stop or
change direction in a shorter distance than cars.
Some bicycles are
used for recreation, but the main purpose of a bicycle is for
necessary transport that does not, unlike cars, pollute the atmosphere
or kill innocent pedestrians.
Is Jim S making a joke or is *he* a
joke?

Fabian the
Fabulous January 20, 2012 at
01:48

I take you don’t ride a bike, then, Jim S?
BTW, you’re wrong on
every rant.

JuliaM January 20, 2012 at 05:18

John77“Bikes, in the hands of a competent rider…”

Ah, but there’s the rub. Car drivers are certified for competence –
anyone can get on a bike and take to the road..

Bunny
January 20, 2012 at 11:27

Point of information Jim, the bike was never a poor man’s horse
when it was created, it was out of the price range of poor men of that
era. It became a ‘working man’s’ piece of equipment after WWI, when it
provided cheap transport to and from work and also a means of getting
out of town.

Many years ago when I worked in Manchester I used to commute into
work on a bicycle, it took me an hour, in the car it took me an hour.
The bicycle had many advantages over the car and I road it in
accordance with the highway code. Though the same commute on my Honda
Fireblade and later the Yamaha R1 did take me about 20 minutes at
most.

Jim, the bike has the great advantage of reducing the amount of
duty you pay to the government, a one off fee of VAT when bought and
besides maintenance costs that’s it. Any body breaking the law when on
a bike should be treated as anybody breaking the law in a car or on a
motorbike, although I would press for leniency on motorcyclist.