Traffic Cops
Blue Meanie
Posts: 495
Anyone see Traffic Cops? Aired 7/10/10 BBC1
No lights, RLJ and wasn't even wearing a helmet!
What you think?
Amusingly, they pull a car for no lights and let it go because cars are safer for their occupants!?
Final result £900 fine for cyclist.
No lights, RLJ and wasn't even wearing a helmet!
What you think?
Amusingly, they pull a car for no lights and let it go because cars are safer for their occupants!?
Final result £900 fine for cyclist.
FCN16 - 1970 BSA Wayfarer
FCN4 - Fixie Inc
FCN4 - Fixie Inc
0
Comments
-
Over the top fine just for the benefit of TV.
Helmets aren't compulsory.
So you are left with £900 for no lights and RLJ.
Guidance for cars. Minimum for running a red light is £60 fine and 3 penalty points. You'd be unlikely to get more if caught by a red light camera.
So that leaves £840 for not displaying lights!
Ridiculous.0 -
From what I remember the policeman listed five offences:
-RLJ
-Drink driving (yes it is possible)
-Not stopping when asked to stop
-Not displaying lights or reflectives
-Riding on the pavement
The guy was being an ass about it.
To be fair, the policemen only wanted to stop him from riding without lights, whereas the car driver was told to turn on his lights.0 -
Quite right, the guy (cyclist) was being a total plank!
He was given the option of a fixed on the spot fine - which he refused.
Well deserved fine in my opinion.0 -
I didn't see the programme so I can't comment on the actions of the cyclist.
Was the fine handed down by a courts?
I still think the fine is overblown and a ridiculous amount.
You see drunk idiots on police programmes fighting on a Friday or Saturday night out. The cause actual bodily harm, resist arrest, abuse the arresting officers and they get let out the next morning with a £75 fixed charge for breach of the peace or something.
I think a fine of this magnitude makes for good TV but will just result in that person feeling alienated by the actions of the police and will be unlikely to aid their efforts in the future if required.0 -
The cyclist was being an idiot, and being rude and offensive to the officers. Despite this, the officers tried to give him just a ticket but he refused and decided he would rather go to court.
The court later outside of the show decided to make an example of him and issue a large fine based on his 5 offences.0 -
The bloke's a witless plank. He had every opportunity for a mildly slapped wrist, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.Sometimes parts break. Sometimes you crash. Sometimes it’s your fault.0
-
http://road.cc/content/news/16542-cycli ... -red-light - news article from before the TV show was aired.
I did a bit of goggling after seeing the show, and saw somewhere that the guy didn't attend court, so the judgement was made in his absence - not sure if the courts take offence to people not turning up?
That said the guys attitude was wrong, instead of holding his hands up and saying "sorry officer", he appeared to go on a "why pick on me the cyclist" routine. While its hard to say on how much footage was edited out of the scene, from what I saw I felt he failed to show respect to the police and other road users (by his RLJ)0 -
The guy got everything he deserved for what he did, he dug the hole for himself and it just kept getting deeper and deeper with his attitude.
As far as I can remember no mention was made about a lack of helmet, just the fact he ran the red light, failed to stop when instructed, had no lights and was on the pavement, sorry but if he had said okay I am in the wrong fair cop, but no he shot his mouth off and he paid the price for being a moron.0 -
just watched on the iplayer
class A muppet
got all that he deserved, should have just accepted it and took the ticket0 -
I'm often left perplexed by the outcomes of cases that they quote at the end of the show on Traffic Cops (or Police Interceptors on Five is much the same) ...
"the three youths who stole the 4x4, failed to stop for police units, crashed through a farmers fence and ran off from the 20+ pursuing police officers and police helicopter before being caught by k9 units were later released without charge"
Ok, so the cyclist was indeed a class A plank and by all accounts deserved to be punished, but the outcome of that case compared to the above example smacks of Police or CPS 'cherry picking' to keep the statistics up!
- JonCommuting between Twickenham <---> Barbican on my trusty Ridgeback Hybrid - url=http://strava.com/athletes/125938/badge]strava[/url0 -
I saw one once. A chap in a car got pulled over (middle aged person, bit peculiar but if I recall correctly no real previous incidents.) He decides to tell the police he has something he shouldn't in the car & gets a small lock-knife out. At the end of the show the voiceover said he got something along the lines of three years for it!FCN 9 || FCN 50
-
jonnyboy77 wrote:...but the outcome of that case compared to the above example smacks of Police or CPS 'cherry picking' to keep the statistics up!
Can you explain? If it was a case of keeping 'statistics' up, everybody would be prosecuted.0 -
Silko wrote:jonnyboy77 wrote:...but the outcome of that case compared to the above example smacks of Police or CPS 'cherry picking' to keep the statistics up!
Can you explain? If it was a case of keeping 'statistics' up, everybody would be prosecuted.
No because then the ratio of failed to successful prosecutions would look terrible.
He means they only pick the battles they know they can definately win.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
-
I haven't seen the clip and thought the fine was harsh until I noted that the guy was being an idiot and had chosen to go to court - more fool him!
I'll look out for it on the repeats._________________________________________________
Pinarello Dogma 2 (ex Team SKY) 2012
Cube Agree GTC Ultegra 2012
Giant Defy 105 20090 -
Asprilla wrote:Silko wrote:jonnyboy77 wrote:...but the outcome of that case compared to the above example smacks of Police or CPS 'cherry picking' to keep the statistics up!
Can you explain? If it was a case of keeping 'statistics' up, everybody would be prosecuted.
No because then the ratio of failed to successful prosecutions would look terrible.
He means they only pick the battles they know they can definitely win.
...which subsequently fouls their ratio of offenders brought to justice. Swings and roundabouts. It just seemed like a very sweeping statement0 -
Asprilla wrote:Silko wrote:jonnyboy77 wrote:...but the outcome of that case compared to the above example smacks of Police or CPS 'cherry picking' to keep the statistics up!
Can you explain? If it was a case of keeping 'statistics' up, everybody would be prosecuted.
No because then the ratio of failed to successful prosecutions would look terrible.
He means they only pick the battles they know they can definitely win.
Basically. So its a lot of work and paperwork to prosecute 3 'suspected' car thieves, where as a guy on a bike who was at least 'sensible' enough to provide a real name and address is an easy prosecution and therefore on those two cases alone they got a 50% prosecution rate, and not a 0% had they screwed them both up.
For what its worth I'm a pro law and order person, I have sympathy for most Police Officers who essentially are prevented from performing their duties as a result of increased bureaucracy/paperwork and a poor showing from the CPS (something I witnessed first hand as a juror).
The guy on the bike may well have deserved everything he got, but when you see/read about repeat offenders getting community orders, cautions, warnings, 'no further action' etc. it makes even the guy on the bike seem like a victimised statistic, because it was too easy.
- JonCommuting between Twickenham <---> Barbican on my trusty Ridgeback Hybrid - url=http://strava.com/athletes/125938/badge]strava[/url0 -
The guy was given a harsh punishment because he was being incredibly difficult with the police. Also, I don't think he even turned up to defend himself in court? I think it was OTT, but then the guy didn't help himself one bit. The only thing I didn't like about the whole incident was that he was referred to as a "cyclist" and that the courts wants to make an example of "lycra louts". This was just a douchebag who happened to be on a bike. I don't see why he had to be grouped with other people who use bikes? Made no sense...0
-
Was he riding a fixie?0
-
He also initially refused to stop when asked by the police. I have not the slightest jot of sympathy for the fool. He wasn't picked on because the police don't like cyclists. They had intended to just give him some friendly advice and he gobbed off. I do agree that some folks seem to get off far too lightly for more serious offences though. I suspect that not turning up for court played a large role in his sentence.0
-
I've added a signature to prove it is still possible.0
-
Ok so its highly apparent form the youtube clip that he failed the attitude test straight away.
But the fine he received in court is still way over the top.
They didn't write him up for the drunk in charge so really all he went to court for is
1)cycling with no lights or refelctors
2)cycling through a red light
3)failing to stop
4)cycling on the pavement
For 2 what he really did was cross the stop line and then actually moved across the junction when it went green. Technically a crime but he didn't endanger anyone as he didn't enter what I would consider the danger area of the junction until it was actually his right of way.
On the failing to stop I have seen 10 times worse from the drunks fighting and actually resisting arrest and all they get is a night in the cells and a telling off.
Couldn't argue against the no lights or reflectors or cycling on the pavement but those are both fairly flimsy things toget slapped with a £900 fine for. The guy did nothing to help himself by being difficult but he wasn't particularly aggressive or abusive.
What he did was vocalise an attitude I have seen on here before of "haven't the police got better things to do than arrest bikers for x,y,z when there are car drivers doing a,b,c" etc.
I do agree he should have been stopped and reprimanded, he should definitely have received a fine. I just think £900 is a bit excessive. Shouldn't they have just given him a fixed penalty charge and then if he decided to ignore it he would go to court?0 -
Blue Meanie wrote:Anyone see Traffic Cops? Aired 7/10/10 BBC1
No lights, RLJ and wasn't even wearing a helmet!
What you think?
Amusingly, they pull a car for no lights and let it go because cars are safer for their occupants!?
Final result £900 fine for cyclist.
The 53 year old cyclist would have been treated in the same way as the motorist, ie a warning, but he chose to be an ar$e.
He was "offered" a £30 ticket for failing to stop at a red light but he chose to be an ar$e.
Looking at other articles, even in front of a magistrate he would usually have expected to received a £30 fine plus costs for each offence but, through his earlier attitude and by not turning up at court, he chose to be an ar$e.
He was eventually fined £225 for each offence plus £215 costs.
Basically for being an ar$e.
Bob0 -
What a tool. Did he seriously expect to win that argument? The fine does seem large, but he was only being stopped for his own safety. Should have MTFU'd and taken the talking to.0
-
what a complete dongWhether you're a king or a little street sweeper, sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper.
Cube Curve 2009
Giant Anthem X4
FCN=60 -
What a nonce-sense. He had plenty of opportunities to say "yes officer. no officer. sorry officer. won't happen again officer. can I go now officer? I promise to push it home officer". Then the plod could have been off on their merry way to go and solve some real crimes, as he was suggesting they should.
I hope it hurt when they threw the book at him.[/i]The Stable '04 Trek 1000 | '09 Giant Bowery '72 | '10 Ridgeback Panorma | '10 Cannondale CAAD9 105 Compact0
