A warning to those that use cameras

[BentMikey]

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

 

[gb155]

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

and you can quote me !

 

[benb]

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]

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]

good job they didnt see the rcent thread on here

 

[Nigeyy]

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.

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]

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]

Thankfully we're more enlightened up here

 

[the_mikey]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[markharry66]

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]

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]

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.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b)that his conduct was reasonable.

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.