cycle cop gets owned

cooldad

andymc06 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Supporting the police means people are pompous and middleclass does it? What a constructive contribution.

No it means they are fascist supporters of the military/industrial combine. And probably investment bankers. Down with the man, power to the people etc.

stubs

andymc06 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Supporting the police means people are pompous and middleclass does it? What a constructive contribution.

Go on who was I talking about which side had I come down on. I just think this thread is full of pompous windbags who are spouting carp.

Thats my opinion which I am legally entitled to under law 1 of the internet.

andymc06

Thanks for letting us know!

bails87

stubs wrote:

andymc06 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Supporting the police means people are pompous and middleclass does it? What a constructive contribution.

Go on who was I talking about which side had I come down on. I just think this thread is full of pompous windbags who are spouting carp.

Thats my opinion which I am legally entitled to under law 1 of the internet.

You know who else said that?

Hitler!

You commienazipigdog!

stubs

bails87 wrote:

You commienazipigdog!

Oi I am not a dog

cooldad

bails87 wrote:

stubs wrote:

andymc06 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Supporting the police means people are pompous and middleclass does it? What a constructive contribution.

Go on who was I talking about which side had I come down on. I just think this thread is full of pompous windbags who are spouting carp.

Thats my opinion which I am legally entitled to under law 1 of the internet.

You know who else said that?

Hitler!

You commienazipigdog!

Godwinned. Thread now closed.

bails87

cooldad wrote:

bails87 wrote:

stubs wrote:

andymc06 wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Supporting the police means people are pompous and middleclass does it? What a constructive contribution.

Go on who was I talking about which side had I come down on. I just think this thread is full of pompous windbags who are spouting carp.

Thats my opinion which I am legally entitled to under law 1 of the internet.

You know who else said that?

Hitler!

You commienazipigdog!

Godwinned. Thread now closed.

MarksMintness

bails87 wrote:

The cyclist was an ars* and the policeman lost his cool.

Neither exactly covered themselves in glory. I wouldn't have though PCs have to know the specific wording of the law they're using. They're police officers, not human encyclopedias.

You can get FPNs for all kinds of things, not just motoring offences, so 'documents' won't always be available. If an officer can't be sure a person is who they say they are, or they just won't say, they can arrest them.

....I think!

The cop should have spoken to the control room, confirmed where he stood, and done what needed to be done. Lashing out at someone, when you know they've got a camera, is stupid.

+1
Watched this vid the other day and thought the cyclist was being an idiot as well. As he increased his berating of the cop (who clearly wasn't prepared after what he thought was a standard FPN offence) the cop eventually lost it, and that's where he went wrong.

cooldad

The guy was still a d1ck. You get caught you MTFU and admit it. Not a act like a little brat.

dan shard

Cat With No Tail wrote:

The cyclist was an absolute ass ramming, monkey humping, dog feltching, turd burgling, cumsponge gobshite!

I quite honestly hope that the next time he jumps a red light, he meets a big truck and gets turned into a red smear on the tarmac.

Fkn bellend!

I wish you'd get off the fence and tell us what you really think lol

blablablacksheep

the video has been removed:(

blablablacksheep

But seen it before if it the one i think it is.

On a side note, this is a issue that police HATE.

A lot of people today believe "they know the law" and when police try and do their job a lot of them use this "knowhow" that they have read online to try and stop the police from doing their job.

My friend is in the force and this attitude towards police really pisses them off a lot.

Most police dont know the "law" 100% and every little detail, it just impossible to do so, thus they are given the general laws so know so that they can do their job without going too far into details, if they did NOTHIN would ever get done, and pretty much all crimes wouldnt be stopped in time due to the paperwork and such.

Therefore you have to give them a break at times, as they just trying to do their job....point in question, the Cyclist BROKE the law, by going through red light, and was putting himself and other road users in danger....take the ticket and stop being a d** i say on that.

If you didnt break the law and police are giving you trouble, sure, you can try and argue but it wont get you anyway, as they will just arest you for public order offence or disturbing the peace, a nice little phase which is easy to use and even easyer to arest people with.......so make a hassel and most times you going to end in the nick.

Better to appeal these things after they been issued then at least you can have your day in court as everyone allowed to in this country:)

end of my little rant

bails87

the Cyclist BROKE the law, by going through red light

Allegedly

In some ways, it's a similar situation to stuff like this. The officer doesn't know the law so makes stuff up, then backtracks and says that he didn't accuse the guy of anything, when he clearly did. In that one there's absolutely no suggestion that the person filiming is doing anything wrong (unlike the numpty on the bike) or obstructing the police. But the officer takes offence at the bloke doing something completely legal and tries to use bluster and outright lies to bully the guy into stopping filming and deleting all recordings. The same regularly happens to photojournalists and amateur photographers.

If they don't know the exact wording of the law then they can clarify it easily enough, maybe they don't even need to tell the person the wording of the law, but know the jist of it.

And I don't think that if you've done nothing wrong you should just accept a S5 conviction and criminal record. It could cost you your job!

Thewaylander

What bails said

Also some of the things he was (badly attempting to quote) quoting apparently not only aren't law, are just a rough guide line policy internally for the police, both people were idiots in this case.

I think the major problem is the police is a public service therefor there image is extremely fragile, and most people are not fans of the public services currently. give people including myself a sniff of them being poorly trained, offensive, bad tempered or even aggressive and it will re-inforce the negative image and the police currently can not afford negative image issues.

bompington

Thewaylander wrote:

What bails said

Also some of the things he was (badly attempting to quote) quoting apparently not only aren't law, are just a rough guide line policy internally for the police, both people were idiots in this case.

I think the major problem is the police is a public service therefor there image is extremely fragile, and most people are not fans of the public services currently. give people including myself a sniff of them being poorly trained, offensive, bad tempered or even aggressive and it will re-inforce the negative image and the police currently can not afford negative image issues.

So let me get this right, it's the job of the police to pander* to your irrational sensitivity?


*pander means arse-licking, it's nothing to do with black and white bear-like animals. Just in case you didn't know.

Thewaylander

Nope but its the idea for everyone in any profession to be proffessional, polite and relatively well informed

it's that simple manners cost little, and though the cyclist was a bit Condescending he was marginly polite, the office was rude abrupt and mis informed.

No a police officer shouldn't need to be able to quote every line and verse, but the first thing he legally has to do is give a warning and rights(listening to radio 2 yesterday and he didn't. He didn't follow any of the proticles laid out, and when this first came to light that officer was given extra training so obviously his seniors agreed he wasn't knoledgeble enough:)

Let me say again though, if the cyclist went through a red light then yes he was an idiot, but the police officer was not in control of his situation or the information pertinant to what he was doing. Thats like myself doing a vat tax return with only an extremely rough knoledge of the rules, i'd get it fairly wrong and then i'd get fined and rightly too for not having reasoable knoledge, I have to have a very good idea(not word for word) and when i need exact details i go look it up and i believe this is the same for most careers public or private sector.

cooldad

Thewaylander wrote:

the cyclist was a bit Condescending he was marginly polite,

Balls, he was a rude d1ck.

Chunkers1980

Let us be fair - RLJing is not the most serious crime the world has seen - *if* a copper wants to 'do you for it' then they should at least know what they are doing you for.

The amount of people I now see holding their phones (low) on a call with loud speaker on is massive and much more dangerous as you are in control of a big piece of metal with an engine.

gazhurst

IF the guy had jumped a red light and IF he was going to pick up his child from school then not only does it make him a poor cyclist it also makes him a very poor and irresponsible parent in my book. I commute along Chiswick High Road on a regular basis and one thing that annoys me more than anything else is 'commuters' (I use this term rather than cyclists as as far as i'm concerned cyclists are enthusiasts and I'd like to hope wouldn't break road laws) running red lights. We are all quick to berate a car driver who happens to pull out on us, overtake us far too closely or generally create a problem for us when cycling yet some on here are saying what this guy has done is OK.

With regards to the Police Officer, I agree he should have remained calm and shouldn't have lashed out but I'd say the guy with the camera was more of a bully than the Copper. The definition of a bullying is "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways". Now surely somebody posting a video on a public website with the obvious intention people seeing said video and therefore embarassing the subject falls into the criteria quoted.

Maybe the Police Officer should have enforced his 'stop and search' powers or maybe even called for some back up. If the commuter had decided then to leave the scene (and bearing in mind he had been alleged to have commited an offence and therefore broken the law) then he would have been liable for arrest for leaving the scene of said crime.

(forgive me if I'm waffling, I'm watching Jeremy Kyle whilst typing)

cooldad

@ chunkers (slow typist)
Just because someone else somewhere else is doing something you consider more wrong is irrelevant.
And the cop did know what he was doing him for - jumping a red light. How hard is it - even lawyers refer to reference books, to expect anyone to memorise the whole of the law is insane.
But as the cop was riding a bike, I would think it would be a bit useless to have him cruising the motorway.

Chunkers1980

That's just the standard answer to my annoyance CD. I just don't see RLJing as something to care about, just watch out for pedestrians and don't green men jump when someone's crossing.

It's just completely silly in my book to wait at a red light (at a crossing) when no-one crosses, just a waste of energy slowing down and stopping for nothing...

I go along Chsiwick High road loads and some of the lights are just stupid, as long as I do don't make cars deviate from what they'd have done if you didn't jump the light and you don't scare/go close to pedsetrians then RLJing is fair game. Just use a bit of common sense.

cooldad

That's fine, but it's still illegal so if you get caught, don't be a big d1ck about it.
But not everyone has your extreme mastery of common sense.
And if you do get hit by a big truck - POIDH

delcol

And if you do get hit by a big truck

blame wiggle...

what if your colour blind and cant tell what colour the light is. it looked green to me officer.

Chunkers1980

Hence why they are always in the same order ;-)

diy

I thought I replied to this but I obviously didn't. It looks like the cyclist was working to the requirements of sec 25 of the police and criminal evidence act. Which requires plod to follow a very prescriptive process if he is going to arrest a person for failing to stop for a red light. Clearly plod knew that jumping a red is non arrestable offence under PACE. However failing to provide name and address for the purposes of issuing a summons for a non-arrestable is an arrestable offence, provided plod followed procedure. Plod knew he had the right to stop the rider and ask him to account. He seemed to be reluctant to then follow the caution (when he failed to account) and then warn of impending arrest when he failed to ID. This is where he went wrong, because s25 PACE fully allows an officer to arrest a person who will not account and will not disclose ID for a non-arrestable provided the procedure is correctly followed by the way. Cycle man knew he hadn't been cautioned and threatened with arrest and was careful not aid plod in finding the correct procedure.

The problem that both seemed to be unaware of is that s25 PACE was repealed by the Serous and Organised crime act which entirely changed the process. This seemed to confuse both. Plod had the power of arrest at his discretion, he seemed not to know this, as he appeared to be using the old PACE rules of the offence being arrestable. For plod all offences are arrestable, subject to his opinion that an arrest is necessary. The moment biker boy refused paperwork or to give details he should have arrested him. I think he was thinking that he had to follow s25 PACE process. He did not.

If anyone wants to try this approach with a more knowledgeable plod - expect to get arrested.

gazhurst

Chunkers1980 wrote:

That's just the standard answer to my annoyance CD. I just don't see RLJing as something to care about, just watch out for pedestrians and don't green men jump when someone's crossing.

It's just completely silly in my book to wait at a red light (at a crossing) when no-one crosses, just a waste of energy slowing down and stopping for nothing...

I go along Chsiwick High road loads and some of the lights are just stupid, as long as I do don't make cars deviate from what they'd have done if you didn't jump the light and you don't scare/go close to pedsetrians then RLJing is fair game. Just use a bit of common sense.

So does this make it OK for Motorcyclists to do the same then?

No, thought not...so why is it ok for us when riding a bicycle? Why should I waste my petrol and wear and tear on my motorcycle engine by slowing down and stopping if it's OK for a cyclist to not 'waste energy slowing down and stopping for nothing...'

Chunkers1980

Don't get me started on motorbikes - they are the worst of the lot.

They don't do it as they have licences and get points as well as fines.

gazhurst

So because we don't have licences etc we're above the law?

And again, we're making generalisations against a particular group...we all use the same road and will at some point want that exact same piece of tarmac. Surely that means we should all do so by following the same rules and regulations, NO exceptions. I see no difference between the car driver who hits a pedestrian while using his mobile phone, a motorcyclist who causes a collision because he was circling a roundabout with his knee on the floor or a cyclist who runs a red light but causes no such problem. The law says its wrong, therefore its wrong.

Chunkers1980

This is perhaps where it differs.

Bikes are not regulated (for insurance and licences), every other road user is (bar horses I suppose). And long may it remain.

gazhurst

I fully respect your comments and views Chunkers but do you not find that our actions have a knock on effect to other road users?

I get the impression sometimes that a car driver who has been upset by something a cyclist (or indeed a motorcyclist) has done will then take his or her frustrations out on every cyclist/motorcyclist they come across.

I once learnt something called 'The Betari Box' (google it, its interesting) which basically suggests that attitudes are contagious and my attitude affects my behaviour which affects your attitude which affects youe behaviour which affects my attitude.....and so on and so on...