Policeman tries to grab helmet cam!

snooks

Policeman tries to grab helmet cam off someone he saw RLJ

And fails....

Kieran_Burns

What, again?

where's the facepalm smiley?

Wallace1492

The cyclist deserves a prize..... a free holiday - on an Italien Cruise ship.....

PBo

must have missed this the first time round, but this is why i couldn't be a policeman, as I would currently be under arrest and being investigated by PCC for the offense of "bludgeoning a smug tw4t to death with a bicycle pump".

I know the PC didn't cover himself with glory. Clearly needs a little training in how to deal with obstructive d1cks, but clearly he got flustered by the c0ckery displayed.

What exactly is the legal situation? Clearly he doesn't need to provide documentation, but failure to give his details must be another offense, no?

Edit: Clearly, I like using the word clearly!

Ben6899

Yep, the cyclist is a bit of a cocky c**t to be fair. I "jumped" a red at the beginning of December and a police officer in a car spotted me. Now if I am honest, on this occasion I wasn't endangering myself or anyone else as there were no pedestrians and nothing coming from the road to the right (Hanover Gate, Regent's Park), but the law is the law and I broke it.

So the police officer had every right to stop me and have a word. I was respectful, apologised, explained my reasoning and also my understanding that my reasoning didn't matter shit. And you know what, he was polite back; never asked for documents, never asked for my name, never threatened me with arrest. Bid me a pleasant remainder of my ride and we parted company.

Because I didn't act like a c**t, I didn't get treated like a c**t. The same cannot be said for the cyclist in the video. C**T.

PBo

Ben6899 wrote:

Yep, the cyclist is a bit of a cocky cun7 to be fair. I "jumped" a red at the beginning of December and a police officer in a car spotted me. Now if I am honest, on this occasion I wasn't endangering myself or anyone else as there were no pedestrians and nothing coming from the road to the right (Hanover Gate, Regent's Park), but the law is the law and I broke it.

So the police officer had every right to stop me and have a word. I was respectful, apologised, explained my reasoning and also my understanding that my reasoning didn't matter shoot. And you know what, he was polite back; never asked for documents, never asked for my name, never threatened my with arrest.

Because I didn't act like a cun7, I didn't get treated like a cun7. The same cannot be said for the cyclist in the video. Cun7.

Absolutely!

Upping the ante by saying your lawyer advised you not to talk to the police is just fukcing tw4tery of the high degree.

PS - you need to find a better way to represent "Cnut" as I can only see asterisks - not c-u-n-7 as I discovered you had typed once I quoted your text...

edit: did you edit ?

Ben6899

I edited!

king_jeffers

Policeman should have used pepper spray then tasered him.

big_p

King Jeffers wrote:

Policeman should have used pepper spray then tasered him.

First.Aspect

"You ran a red light" - "That's what you think you saw is it?" - "Yeah, that's what I saw".

Given the rest of the PC's performance, I'd say that there has to be at least some doubt as to whether the cyclist actually ran a red light. Judging on appearances only, the odds are greatly against the PC having caught up a roadie. So the PC will have been waiting some way after a junction, to target rljers.

Really quite often I've been shouted at by thick people (who happen to be driving) that, because I'm exiting the other side of a large junction or a single line alternate after all the cars, I must therefore have run the preceding red light, despite having gone through on green or amber. We are not obliged to stop and turn back any more than a car is obliged to reverse, under those circumstances.

Merely putting a cycle helmet on, and a halfords mtb underneath, a tubby copper does not mean he is any better at judging that scenario.

CraigTheBiker

First Aspect wrote:

Given the rest of the PC's performance, I'd say that there has to be at least some doubt as to whether the cyclist actually ran a red light. Judging on appearances only, the odds are greatly against the PC having caught up a roadie. So the PC will have been waiting some way after a junction, to target rljers.

With detective work like that perhaps you should be in the force yourself!

The cyclist was totally out of order. If he didn't go through a red light, he should have argued his case in a respectful way. There was absolutely no need for the "I've been advised by my lawyer..." nonsense.

veronese68

Ben6899 wrote:

Because I didn't act like a c**t, I didn't get treated like a c**t. The same cannot be said for the cyclist in the video. C**T.

This always applies. Even if plod was wrong (fair leap of assumption) the bloke shouldn't have acted like a twunt. He deserved to be arrested just for being such an aris.

First.Aspect

CraigTheBiker wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Given the rest of the PC's performance, I'd say that there has to be at least some doubt as to whether the cyclist actually ran a red light. Judging on appearances only, the odds are greatly against the PC having caught up a roadie. So the PC will have been waiting some way after a junction, to target rljers.

With detective work like that perhaps you should be in the force yourself!

The cyclist was totally out of order. If he didn't go through a red light, he should have argued his case in a respectful way. There was absolutely no need for the "I've been advised by my lawyer..." nonsense.

Yes because if you reason with a PC who is going to give you a ticket for not doing anything wrong, they change their mind. If they don't for some strange reason, you can appeal, to their supervisor, who waddles over to their desk three months later and asks the PC if he was wrong about the incident he has no recollection about, and wants to change his mind. If for some strange reason the PC still does not want to change their mind, you can always go to court and have your word up against the PC's.

Alternatively, you can just save yourself several months' hassle and do what that guy did.

Besides, the video does not show the start of the incident. Its not totally out of the question that the PC was an annoying trumped up nob to begin with.

walkingbootweather

On no, now the mainstream media are broadcasting this. The video has been discussed on here several times; most recently http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12830065&p=17385687#p17385687. The cyclist in question is featured in dozens of youtube videos goading The Police. The more publicity he gets the more likely he is to continue. I just wish the Telegraph had done a bit more research before posting.

veronese68

First Aspect wrote:

CraigTheBiker wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Given the rest of the PC's performance, I'd say that there has to be at least some doubt as to whether the cyclist actually ran a red light. Judging on appearances only, the odds are greatly against the PC having caught up a roadie. So the PC will have been waiting some way after a junction, to target rljers.

With detective work like that perhaps you should be in the force yourself!

The cyclist was totally out of order. If he didn't go through a red light, he should have argued his case in a respectful way. There was absolutely no need for the "I've been advised by my lawyer..." nonsense.

Yes because if you reason with a PC who is going to give you a ticket for not doing anything wrong, they change their mind. If they don't for some strange reason, you can appeal, to their supervisor, who waddles over to their desk three months later and asks the PC if he was wrong about the incident he has no recollection about, and wants to change his mind. If for some strange reason the PC still does not want to change their mind, you can always go to court and have your word up against the PC's.

Alternatively, you can just save yourself several months' hassle and do what that guy did.

Besides, the video does not show the start of the incident. Its not totally out of the question that the PC was an annoying trumped up nob to begin with.

Who edited the video? The policeman or the sanctimonious cnut? If he hadn't jumped the red light don't you think he would have shown that in the video?

PBo

Veronese68 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

CraigTheBiker wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Given the rest of the PC's performance, I'd say that there has to be at least some doubt as to whether the cyclist actually ran a red light. Judging on appearances only, the odds are greatly against the PC having caught up a roadie. So the PC will have been waiting some way after a junction, to target rljers.

With detective work like that perhaps you should be in the force yourself!

The cyclist was totally out of order. If he didn't go through a red light, he should have argued his case in a respectful way. There was absolutely no need for the "I've been advised by my lawyer..." nonsense.

Yes because if you reason with a PC who is going to give you a ticket for not doing anything wrong, they change their mind. If they don't for some strange reason, you can appeal, to their supervisor, who waddles over to their desk three months later and asks the PC if he was wrong about the incident he has no recollection about, and wants to change his mind. If for some strange reason the PC still does not want to change their mind, you can always go to court and have your word up against the PC's.

Alternatively, you can just save yourself several months' hassle and do what that guy did.

Besides, the video does not show the start of the incident. Its not totally out of the question that the PC was an annoying trumped up nob to begin with.

Who edited the video? The policeman or the sanctimonious cnut? If he hadn't jumped the red light don't you think he would have shown that in the video?

This +1000

First.Aspect

The Telegraph?

Look I'm just putting forward a contrary view to point out how much information, and how much supposition, you are working from.

Why, when they spoke to him later, did the police not give him a fixed penalty? He can't be identified, so why if he was guilty did he identify himself to the police? You can spin your assumptions however you want when you have very little actual information.

veronese68

The bloke with the cam originally posted it on YouTube, that was linked to on here some time ago. The passing of the red light, or not was never shown. The policeman shows that he is far from being the sharpest tool in the box, but the other bloke was acting like a complete tool. I'd ask if that was you, but that would be going way too far.
People can be identified from posting videos of themselves on YouTube. That's how they got him, but as he didn't show the light he didn't incriminate himself suffuciently to get a ticket I suspect.

W1

First Aspect wrote:

"You ran a red light" - "That's what you think you saw is it?" - "Yeah, that's what I saw".

Given the rest of the PC's performance, I'd say that there has to be at least some doubt as to whether the cyclist actually ran a red light. Judging on appearances only, the odds are greatly against the PC having caught up a roadie. So the PC will have been waiting some way after a junction, to target rljers.

Really quite often I've been shouted at by thick people (who happen to be driving) that, because I'm exiting the other side of a large junction or a single line alternate after all the cars, I must therefore have run the preceding red light, despite having gone through on green or amber. We are not obliged to stop and turn back any more than a car is obliged to reverse, under those circumstances.

Merely putting a cycle helmet on, and a halfords mtb underneath, a tubby copper does not mean he is any better at judging that scenario.

If he didn't do it, why doesn't he deny it during all his pseudo-legal b*llocks?

Wallace1492

I think all normal cyclists are embaressed by this guy's behaviour.
He is completely disrespectful and sets back the cause of cyclists to be serious road users.
His actions and the publicity around it actually causes cyclists more danger as drivers see how moronic he is and tar us all with the same brush.

snooks

walkingbootweather wrote:

On no, now the mainstream media are broadcasting this. The video has been discussed on here several times; most recently http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12830065&p=17385687#p17385687.

I did a search before posting, but the search didn't bring up any results, well no recent ones anyway

First.Aspect

Yes I confess it was me. I came 300 miles south whilst recovering from a crushed ankle over the summer, bought myself a new bike and took colossal amounts of pain killers. It put me in a contrary mood and I apologise for the damage it has done to the cycling community.

veronese68

First Aspect wrote:

Yes I confess it was me. I came 300 miles south whilst recovering from a crushed ankle over the summer, bought myself a new bike and took colossal amounts of pain killers. It put me in a contrary mood and I apologise for the damage it has done to the cycling community.

Some people will do anything to start a fight and get a bit of attention. Give yourself a stern talking to and I'll let you off with a caution for the mitigating circumstances.

CambsNewbie

I wonder why the cyclist has only posted the confrontation with the copper online, why not the evidence of him NOT going through the red light if he didn't?

The copper doesn't help himself but you don't have to know the exact wording of every law as the cyclist demands..

Finally when I stop someone, an apology, words to the effect of I won't do it again and a smile go a very way..

W1

CambsNewbie wrote:

The copper doesn't help himself but you don't have to know the exact wording of every law as the cyclist demands..

..

The cop should have had some idea of the law - he didn't.

Surely that sort of legislation is bread and butter for a copper - it's not some ancient, obscure, irrelevant act. If you are going to demand details from someone, or detain them, you ought to be able to clearly explain the basis for those actions. If you can't, you shouldn't have the right to ask in the first place...

Pep

Ben6899 wrote:

Yep, the cyclist is a bit of a cocky c**t to be fair. I "jumped" a red at the beginning of December and a police officer in a car spotted me. Now if I am honest, on this occasion I wasn't endangering myself or anyone else as there were no pedestrians and nothing coming from the road to the right (Hanover Gate, Regent's Park), but the law is the law and I broke it.

So the police officer had every right to stop me and have a word. I was respectful, apologised, explained my reasoning and also my understanding that my reasoning didn't matter shoot. And you know what, he was polite back; never asked for documents, never asked for my name, never threatened me with arrest. Bid me a pleasant remainder of my ride and we parted company.

Because I didn't act like a c**t, I didn't get treated like a c**t. The same cannot be said for the cyclist in the video. C**T.

+1
Exactly the same happened to me.

Ben6899

Pep wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

My story with some 'c**t's thrown in.

+1
Exactly the same happened to me.

At Hanover Gate!?

Slapster_UK

Cyclist appears to be a bit of an officious tw*t, and the Policeman assists him to be one!!

Strange how the cam footage only starts AFTER the red light (or the version I have seen, anyway!) - you would have thought that *IF* the cam showed the cyclist not transgressing the law, he would have shown it, if for no other reason than to support his claims agains the unjust Policeman.

As far as I know, the copper, if he has reason to believe that an offence has been committed (and he is under NO obligation to quote Act and paragraph at the roadside), can, quite legally require the person whom he suspects of being the perpetrator, to furnish him with details sufficient for service of a summons - name and address, basically, and if there is any doubt, some form of proof/ID if available.

Should the suspect refuse of give "Mickey Mouse" details, then he stands the chance of being arrested under Sec 25 PACE, until those details can be ascertained/confirmed - be that by the swift productional that moment of docs of some type, or later at the Police Station in some way.

TRouble is, the copper didn't seem to either know,or be able to articulate this to the cyclist.

As for no caution being given at the outset - that is (another) error on the part of the Policeman, but does not negate the above - just means that anything said cannot be used in evidence.

Both as bad as one another to be honest........

rideslikeagirl

I hate to add a thing to the stuff, but surely its the plod's job to prove bikey guy ran the red light, not the cyclist's job to prove he didn't? As you're here, did you run the red or not? I don't have a stance on RLJing, i do it on occasion but mostly not. I'm not going to justify it and if i get stopped, it means i wasn't looking properly...! But yeah, when i was assaulted by a driver the 'no i didn't response' seemed to work for him so that's probably where i'd go...

HebdenBiker

This video is popular because it shows a victory over authority. It makes authoritarian types melt with indignation that somebody might not blindly obey a policeman, and gives the rest of us a bloody good laugh.

IF the cyclist jumped a red light, then he should not have done so. But it's hardly crime of the century. And this is why people should calm down about it.

The police officer is clearly a halfwit, so instead of knowledge, wit or cunning, has tried to rely on bluster, and a high-handed, intimidating attitude, to assert power in this situation. Fortunately, the cyclist is not intimidated, and absolutely runs rings around the policeman. The policemen does what all thickos in uniform do when they're losing the battle, and lashes out. This is exactly the response the cyclist wants because it gives him an excuse to just ride off.

There are plenty of instances (too many to list) in which the police have abused their power and have killed, maimed, falsely incarcerated or have in other ways harmed people or ruined their lives. This is one instance where an ordinary person, in a harmless way, gets one over on the Boys in Blue. We would do well to retain a sense of perspective.

W1

HebdenBiker wrote:

This video is popular because it shows a victory over authority. It makes authoritarian types melt with indignation that somebody might not blindly obey a policeman, and gives the rest of us a bloody good laugh.

IF the cyclist jumped a red light, then he should not have done so. But it's hardly crime of the century. And this is why people should calm down about it.

The police officer is clearly a halfwit, so instead of knowledge, wit or cunning, has tried to rely on bluster, and a high-handed, intimidating attitude, to assert power in this situation. Fortunately, the cyclist is not intimidated, and absolutely runs rings around the policeman. The policemen does what all thickos in uniform do when they're losing the battle, and lashes out. This is exactly the response the cyclist wants because it gives him an excuse to just ride off.

There are plenty of instances (too many to list) in which the police have abused their power and have killed, maimed, falsely incarcerated or have in other ways harmed people or ruined their lives. This is one instance where an ordinary person, in a harmless way, gets one over on the Boys in Blue. We would do well to retain a sense of perspective.

I'm not sure we watched the same video.

The guy was a whiny little knob of the worst kind - between the two of them, he was the blustering one spouting absolute sh!te whilst trying to appear clever. He was (more than likely) in the wrong, he knew it, but he wasn't prepared to admit it nor accept the punishment he (more than likely) deserved.

He could, and should, have been arrested - then he might not be such a knob in future. Or he might find a copper who really lashes out at his poor attitude - and I can't say I wouldn't think he deserved it.