Police Vs Cyclist

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

Okay, so are we now in a position to point out the errors/principles in the video?

- 0:21 Yes, the cyclist has a right to silence. The PC's response was somewhat aggressive. However, being silent means being silent.

- 1:17 The cyclist can refuse the fixed penalty paperwork. The PC is correct to question how he will pay the FP without it (and I guess was getting at whether the cyclist was refusing to accept a FP).

- 1:56 The cyclist does need to provide his details. IDCOPPLAN is, as the video caption says, merely a police mnemonic, however it summarises the relevant law.

- 2:08 First mention by the PC of documents. Bad move.

After that it all falls apart a bit because the Cyclist doesn't know what he's talking about, and the PC is basically right, but expressing himself very poorly.

-3:00 "Lie Number 3" regarding knowing the exact law is not a lie.


There's a longer version here, which suggests that the cyclist rode away and was not pursued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7BQvt3XeAY

The cyclist's right to silence does not negate the need to supply his name and address under the Road Traffic Act. He still commits an offence by failing to do so.

First time I've heard of IDCOPPLAN, but yes, it summarises the necessity requirement for statutory powers of arrest under s.24(5) PACE. The officer also has to have reasonable grounds to suspect the person is in the process of committing an offence, is about to commit an offence or is guilty of an offence that has already been committed. In other words he must have grounds and it must also be necessary to arrest. Police should always consider less intrusive means such as inviting someone in for a voluntary interview or arresting and then immediately granting the person street bail. The cyclist however didn't give the officer an option - he should have been arrested.

I think there is an element of lack of confidence on the officer's part but he was actually in the right about a lot of what he said.

Herzlos

RS2000. wrote: »

How does ID prevent a producer then?

You've either got a licence, insurance and mot or you haven't. If they're not on the database ID won't help you.

Because in my case, my ID is my driving license. Because it's a new style card and fits it my wallet. It's also the one most likely to be used. Ergo if I have it I'll never get a producer for it.

I shall be more specific in future to try and cut off this pedantry

RS2000.

Herzlos wrote: »

Because in my case, my ID is my driving license. Because it's a new style card and fits it my wallet. It's also the one most likely to be used. Ergo if I have it I'll never get a producer for it.

I shall be more specific in future to try and cut off this pedantry

You're not getting it, if there's a problem on the database they're unlikely to accept the licence at the roadside. Still doesn't cover insurance and mot either.

Herzlos

Maybe not, but it's still going to be a lot easier with it than without, no?

Guest101

Easier for the police to conduct an investigation into prosecuting you?

That's like giving a kidnapper a gun.

I'd rather let them do the work

Cornucopia

What you're not getting (and what the cyclist didn't understand) is that "making them do the work" is designed to be more onerous on you, to encourage your cooperation earlier in the process.

Yes, you have certain rights not to participate in the process, but sometimes it makes no sense to exercise them.

Herzlos

Guest101 wrote: »

Easier for the police to conduct an investigation into prosecuting you?

If it's come to that I'm going to get prosecuted anyway, and I'd rather be able to just go home instead of going to a police station to have my identity confirmed, or even just wasting 10 minutes at the side of the road arguing pedantics with the police officer. There's no way I can implicate myself any further in anything by showing them my driving license.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

What you're not getting (and what the cyclist didn't understand) is that "making them do the work" is designed to be more onerous on you, to encourage your cooperation earlier in the process.

Yes, you have certain rights not to participate in the process, but sometimes it makes no sense to exercise them.

Hmm overstretched police forces up and down the country. Under funded and overworked.

I'll stick with my strategy of keeping silent. That way I cannot incriminate myself.

You go ahead and admit liability at the scene and pay whatever the fine is.

Guest101

Herzlos wrote: »

If it's come to that I'm going to get prosecuted anyway, and I'd rather be able to just go home instead of going to a police station to have my identity confirmed, or even just wasting 10 minutes at the side of the road arguing pedantics with the police officer. There's no way I can implicate myself any further in anything by showing them my driving license.

I dont see where i suggested 'arguing' anything. I suggested stay silent.

You do whatever you need to do. If you know any police officers, why dont you ask them about the psychological advantage they have in situtation such as yours. Questions designed to catch you out.

'Sorry officer, I didnt see the red light' - oh so you werent riding with due care and attention?. Job done, FPN.

They even tell you not to say anything, and yet most people ignore it and carry on.

Herzlos

"Sorry officer, I didn't see the red light" has gotten a few people I know verbal warnings and shoo'd on within moments. I'm pretty sure if they stayed silent they'd have been there a lot longer.

Police officers are human too and tend to let you away with it if you pass the attitude test.