Mr Policeman undertaking....

southdownswolf

What hope do we have when even the police break the law against cyclists?

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/10/police ... verything/

Sorry if this has already been posted, couldn't see it anywhere else.

knownothingbozo

I'm a police officer - please for the sake of all of us, report this muppet, his attitude sucks and he's an appalling example.

diy

Copper is definitely in the wrong, didn't really give the cyclist time to return to the left. But How did the cyclist catch up with him when the lights had just gone red :?

I would suggest this is a case of inconsiderate driving.

but we cannot see what hand signals the cyclist is giving? Unless he is turning right he really should have been on the left, not that he had much time to move over.

Did anyone else spot that plod wasn't wearing his seat belt :shock: though they do have exemption.

I must admit I really don't get why plod need shoguns and range rovers in central london anyway.

But what must not be lost is the fact that this likely to be Advanced Driver - deliberately cut up a cyclist.

NWLondoner

IMO BOTH the cyclist and Plod are in the wrong.

The roads were quiet so in these circumstances the cyclist could have moved over to the bus lane and then safely filtered to the right hand lane when approaching his turn. If it was busy/rush hour then holding primary in that lane would be the most sensible and safest approach.

However the Plod was a complete TWUNT!!! Undertaking in a bus lane and cutting across the cyclist is UNFORGIVABLE. Considering they are supposed to have had super advanced driver training I suggest that this is revoked ASAP!!

Also REFUSING to give his ID Number is out of order.

I know NOT all Police are bad apples but living and cycling in London the attitude of the majority of the Met i've dealt with over the years has left me with not too favourable view of them.

Almost being wiped out by a Territorial support vehicle over taking me in Regents Park at speed and only giving about 6 inches of room and then turning right towards the Mosque didn't help either.

itsnotarace

NWLondoner wrote:

IMO BOTH the cyclist and Plod are in the wrong.

This^^

As said on other forums, they don't call them helmet cams for nothing

giant_man

southdownswolf wrote:

What hope do we have when even the police break the law against cyclists?

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/10/police ... verything/

Sorry if this has already been posted, couldn't see it anywhere else.

Yeah they do this kind of thing and get away with it, cos they can ...

Joeblack

I'd have punched the copper or at very least kicked his wing mirror off and then blazed through a red light so I could get home in time to pm Ez_rider about decals ;-)

Churchill123

Let's hope he gets reported for being a complete bell end if anything - I thought when asked for ID numbers they had to give them? - Although from my dealings with plod they seem to do as they please as they think they are above the law!

alihisgreat

Churchill123 wrote:

Let's hope he gets reported for being a complete bell end if anything - I thought when asked for ID numbers they had to give them? - Although from my dealings with plod they seem to do as they please as they think they are above the law!

yeah they have to if you ask them.

thegibdog

diy wrote:

But How did the cyclist catch up with him when the lights had just gone red :?

Indeed, it seems the cyclist conveniently edited out his own law breaking.

the_cyclist_of_catan

Leaving aside the RLJ (not least because plod didn't appear to notice it - perhaps he has trouble with his mirrors too?), that was poor driving significantly compounded with a very poor attitude. I wondered from the appearance of the car and driver whether he was an armed unit - they can be touchiest than the average police officer when approached IME. But either way, his manner in dealing with the public would benefit from some re-education, and he ought to brush up on his road craft too.

jonomc4

I was going down a bus lane only to have a private car drive it and almost knocking me off (and yes the lane was not open to cars at that time). I cursed the driver more than a little!

Anyway due to traffic I caught the car up about 3 mopters down the road (there was no longer a bus lane) - I looked in the car and low and behold the driver had a met policemans jacket on!

itsnotarace

The Cyclist of Catan wrote:

I wondered from the appearance of the car and driver whether he was an armed unit

My first thought when I first saw the clip was SO19 but their cars are marked with a small yellow circular sticker on the side and rear, so it was probably a protection vehicle for politicians / royals and various other bigwigs

diy

I thought the same, and having trained advanced motorcycling to some of those guys, thought the standard of driving matched pretty well. I remember one anti-terrism officer I trained who when questioned about what he learned on his Advanced driving course (I was teaching bikes and his skill was someway short), he proudly stated, they just said put your foot down and go like F***. He couldn't ride for toffee, but compensated for his lack of skill with more right hand. I hope he is still with us :?

StillGoing

knownothingbozo wrote:

I'm a police officer - please for the sake of all of us, report this muppet, his attitude sucks and he's an appalling example.

I'll second that. Muppets like him give the rest of us a bad name.

StillGoing

diy wrote:

Copper is definitely in the wrong, didn't really give the cyclist time to return to the left. But How did the cyclist catch up with him when the lights had just gone red :?

I would suggest this is a case of inconsiderate driving.

but we cannot see what hand signals the cyclist is giving? Unless he is turning right he really should have been on the left, not that he had much time to move over.

Did anyone else spot that plod wasn't wearing his seat belt :shock: though they do have exemption.

I must admit I really don't get why plod need shoguns and range rovers in central london anyway.

But what must not be lost is the fact that this likely to be Advanced Driver - deliberately cut up a cyclist.

No they don't. Unless there is a prisoner in the vehicle they should be wearing a seat belt. Only those that have attended and passed an Advance Driving course will be advanced. The majority of officers are on standard driving authorities. And WTF is it with the shades?

diy

Wrong again that may be policy, but the legal exemption is unconditional.

The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993 ... ion/6/made

part 2 reg 6 (f)
(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);

CambsNewbie

Phew! Was worried until I saw it was in London and the car was a Range Rover! My force can barely afford Astras. And even then with half an engine!

Also seems to be a lot of coppers on here!

steve6690

2 dickheads in the same place at the same time. The cyclist should have been in the bus/cycle lane, and the bobby shouldn't have undertaken like that. And as for those shades... :roll:
In our force you have to be advanced grade to even take a Range Rover out on the roads, but even a standard driver knows you don't use a bus lane to undertake a cyclist. Not even on an emergency call.

Mike39496

steve6690 wrote:

2 dickheads in the same place at the same time. The cyclist should have been in the bus/cycle lane, and the bobby shouldn't have undertaken like that. And as for those shades... :roll:
In our force you have to be advanced grade to even take a Range Rover out on the roads, but even a standard driver knows you don't use a bus lane to undertake a cyclist. Not even on an emergency call.

The shades are ballistic glasses are they not? He seemed to be armed response so this would make sense.

germcevoy

Copper looks like Nasser Hussain.

StillGoing

diy wrote:

Wrong again that may be policy, but the legal exemption is unconditional.

The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993 ... ion/6/made

part 2 reg 6 (f)
(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);

No it isn't. The exemption only applies like all TROs when acting in the course of a necessary duty. Routine patrol is not a situation where the exemption would apply. Besides, the force's own liability insurance against injury or death would as you say mean internal policy dictates he should be wearing a seat belt.

StillGoing

Mike39496 wrote:

steve6690 wrote:

2 dickheads in the same place at the same time. The cyclist should have been in the bus/cycle lane, and the bobby shouldn't have undertaken like that. And as for those shades... :roll:
In our force you have to be advanced grade to even take a Range Rover out on the roads, but even a standard driver knows you don't use a bus lane to undertake a cyclist. Not even on an emergency call.

The shades are ballistic glasses are they not? He seemed to be armed response so this would make sense.

Ballistic shades? What use would they be if such a thing existed? Firearms teams wear goggles when on ops not sunglasses. He's a prat and is just making sure everyone can see he is. As someone in charge of some of these bell ends, if you don't tell us about them, we can't do anything about it.

steve6690

Might be armed response judging by the uniform, but I don't think those are ballistic glasses. The ones I've seen used are clear. Normally goggles are only worn with the ballistic helmet.

diy

philthy3 wrote:

No it isn't. The exemption only applies like all TROs when acting in the course of a necessary duty. Routine patrol is not a situation where the exemption would apply. Besides, the force's own liability insurance against injury or death would as you say mean internal policy dictates he should be wearing a seat belt.

The law is clear the exemption also clear. How would a prisoner or camera man for example be acting in the course of a necessary duty. Anyone in a vehicle being used for police purposes is exempt.

Scrumple

I hate cyclists who love to moan and can't wait to catch someone and gloat.

the playing mantis

wtf is nasser hussain doing driving a cop car! moonlightning when hes not needed on sky!?!

StillGoing

diy wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

No it isn't. The exemption only applies like all TROs when acting in the course of a necessary duty. Routine patrol is not a situation where the exemption would apply. Besides, the force's own liability insurance against injury or death would as you say mean internal policy dictates he should be wearing a seat belt.

The law is clear the exemption also clear. How would a prisoner or camera man for example be acting in the course of a necessary duty. Anyone in a vehicle being used for police purposes is exempt.

They aren't. TRO exemptions are down to the local parish and are not the same everywhere. Here, they were dropped years ago because they were being used incorrectly by all emergency services and not just the police. I had to pen a two page report when one of my officers parked on a double yellow line to drop some exhibits off at court. I attempted to use the TRO exemption as his authority and was advised that they were no longer applicable unless the action is essential. I successfully argued for him that they should be informing staff when rules change instead of leaving them to inadvertently fall foul of them when previously they were allowed to do so. A prisoner has to have a seat belt on if they are compliant. If they aren't compliant they should be transported in a vehicle with a cage reducing the danger of injury in a collision or struggling with officers. As for camera operators from TV companies; such is the zeal for publicity of the senior management of police forces, they'll no doubt be turning a blind eye to any transgression.

nickellis

Germcevoy wrote:

Copper looks like Nasser Hussain.

+1 as soon as I saw the clip I though Nas had got the boot from Sky Sports.

diy

Phillthy3 it's a bit odd that having quoted the statute you still won't accept it. We are not talking about red lights, speeding, double yellows etc we are talking about the law that made seat belts compulsory. That specific law included exemptions. Your reference to double yellows suggests just how little you understand how this stuff works. Surely they teach you basic law when you learn to be a plod? So unless you can quote an amendment or legal precedent where an officer was prosecuted for not wearing a seat belt while in a car being used for police purposes. You'll have to forgive my dismissal of your pantomime like "oh no it isn't".

StillGoing

TROs (Traffic Regulation Orders) cover all exemptions to road traffic law as permitted by the local authority which is why I exampled the double yellow offence. TROs cover everything from excess speed, red lights, parking restrictions, lights and seat belt exemptions. There is no standard set of TROs as the local authority will decide which ones they will permit. There is no automatic regulation that exempts police officers from wearing a seat belt. While the vehicle is being used other than when carrying a prisoner, the seat belt should be worn. The exemption for when carrying a prisoner came about when a compliant prisoner who wasn't wearing one, reached over and pulled the handbrake on causing the vehicle to crash killing one of the officers.

Where the pillock in the video is may or may not have a TRO exempting officers from wearing seat belts at all times, (i seriously doubt it has) but a local TRO is not an all encompassing regulation for all police officers not to wear seat belts. The legislation you quote is way behind the times and no force would permit its staff to disregard the safety implications or the message it sends out to the public. (The policy you referred toe earlier.) The insurance liability alone would make chief officers shudder let alone the basket full of complaint letters.

We're in middle ground with you asserting there is a presumed exemption under the RTA and me pointing out a TRO countermands it as will force policy. The point I may have cackhandedly made was there is no automatic exemption despite the RTA legislation.