Police Vs Cyclist

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

You're still missing the point. There is no relevant admission of liability, here. The offence was witnessed by an Officer, and that is all that is required. If the Cyclist asserts that there was no offence, then he *might* be successful in making the Police dig out the CCTV footage, which will probably exist at Central London traffic lights. But the basic principle in a wide range of traffic offences is that the word of an Officer, witnessing an offence is the minimum required evidence to prosecute.

For more serious offences, or in different kinds of interview, then, yes, right to silence (and right to counsel) can play an important role. But not in this case.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

You're still missing the point. There is no relevant admission of liability, here. The offence was witnessed by an Officer, and that is all that is required. If the Cyclist asserts that there was no offence, then that's another issue, but it is not what was happening here.

For more serious offences, or in different kinds of interview, then, yes, right to silence (and right to counsel) can play an important role. But not in this case.

Give your details yes, but in this case legal advice maybe say nothing about the offence. You consider the cyclist bang to right for the red light so why give the police anymore evidence. The arguement about the fact is for court not the roadside.

Cornucopia

Not really. If the Policeman had been "better", he would have addressed the issue of whether the Cyclist was going to accept the Fixed Penalty or not, and done it properly and decisively.

As soon as the Cyclist said that he would not take the FP paperwork, I would have asked him if he was rejecting the option of a FP. If yes, or if he subsequently rejected the paperwork, then I would have reported him for the offence, and not gone down the FP route. I'm sure this is a lot more paperwork, but I think it's important to make the system work the way it is supposed to.

Guest101

Herzlos wrote: »

"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.

'A few people you know' - oh settled then, a few incidents clearly is a sufficient 'source' with which to form an opinion. Tens of thousands of FPNs are issued every month.

Once the officer has your details, he has no right to detain you, simply leave.

Police officers are human too, and are in a stressful job, make mistakes, have bad days, are over worked.....

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

You're still missing the point. There is no relevant admission of liability, here. The offence was witnessed by an Officer, and that is all that is required. If the Cyclist asserts that there was no offence, then he *might* be successful in making the Police dig out the CCTV footage, which will probably exist at Central London traffic lights. But the basic principle in a wide range of traffic offences is that the word of an Officer, witnessing an offence is the minimum required evidence to prosecute.

For more serious offences, or in different kinds of interview, then, yes, right to silence (and right to counsel) can play an important role. But not in this case.

Great. So saying nothing does you no harm.

Saying something might add to their case, and might highlight other offences.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not really. If the Policeman had been "better", he would have addressed the issue of whether the Cyclist was going to accept the Fixed Penalty or not, and done it properly and decisively.

As soon as the Cyclist said that he would not take the FP paperwork, I would have asked him if he was rejecting the option of a FP. If yes, or if he subsequently rejected the paperwork, then I would have reported him for the offence, and not gone down the FP route. I'm sure this is a lot more paperwork, but I think it's important to make the system work the way it is supposed to.

Just highlighting and underlining the operative words here...

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not really. If the Policeman had been "better", he would have addressed the issue of whether the Cyclist was going to accept the Fixed Penalty or not, and done it properly and decisively.

As soon as the Cyclist said that he would not take the FP paperwork, I would have asked him if he was rejecting the option of a FP. If yes, or if he subsequently rejected the paperwork, then I would have reported him for the offence, and not gone down the FP route. I'm sure this is a lot more paperwork, but I think it's important to make the system work the way it is supposed to.

Same form these days in a lot of places. The officers aren't allowed to decide the outcome.

Cornucopia

Guest101 wrote: »

Just highlighting and underlining the operative words here...

You mean he might just have been saying it, and didn't intend to do it?

Not sure where that gets us.

Guest101

Cornucopia wrote: »

You mean he might just have been saying it, and didn't intend to do it?

Not sure where that gets us.

No I mean he spoke. Words came out if his mouth, which you then suggested would escalate the situation.

My point is say nothing. Provide the details then walk away.

You aren't under arrest. So leave the situation.

Tilt

Seems to me that the dilemma for the officer is how to deal with a smart-arsed cyclist who has committed an offence.

Clearly this particular cyclist wants to 'enjoy' the 'privilege' that cyclists have through not having any form of registration or requiring any documentation. This clip clearly demonstrates that this cyclist thinks that he MAY be immune from prosecution hence he falls into the category of being an irresponsible cyclist by being able to take advantage of escaping the law.

In reality though, the cyclist should be bought to book and the system should be clear on how to proceed in this circumstance (just like it is for a normal motorist). The officer (clearly a cyclist himself) should be better trained into the available procedures when dealing with cyclist as clearly he is being frustrated by this chancer of a cyclist.

As I see it there should be 2 choices available; the 'offender' provides his details and accepts the FPN or the officer reports him for the offence if he refuses. The latter of course also requires him to provide his details so the question is what option (and there MUST be one) is the officer left with when the 'offender' refuses to co-operate? Surely the cyclist cannot simply walk away un-punished!