Police driver problem

usedtobefast

And people wonder why there's lack of respect for authority in these times. These people are meant to set an example, most are just like any of us but with a badge which gives them a God complex (but GP's are still the masters of this).

http://uk.autoblog.com/2012/10/01/video ... h-cyclist/

Personally I don't think the near miss is that close, but maybe difficult to tell from the video, but it's the attitude of the driver.

Cleat Eastwood

I can't really see a problem. They both made mistakes and no one was anywhere near being injured. Not everything in life will go your own way, no point getting grumpy about it.

napoleond

Oh dear. we've already had a ridiculous, moaning, multi page thread about this very non-incident.

usedtobefast

For myself the problem is the officer refusing to give his name and number - didn't think they could refuse these requests from anyone.

napoleond

Why?

Officer probably very busy and has no time to deal with a communter who was gleefully fishing for headcam footage to put on youtube.

lucan

usedtobefast wrote:

For myself the problem is the officer refusing to give his name and number - didn't think they could refuse these requests from anyone.

His number was clearly displayed on his uniform. Anyone too stupid to see it would be unlikely to remember why he had asked for it a few minutes later.

capt_slog

I was trying to figure out why he was riding where he was, when there was a bus and cycle lane on his inside going the same way.

And then I realised. If he was in that lane he'd have no confrontations at all, and that wouldn't do would it?

crankycrank

Much ado about nothing. Next.

nweststeyn

Two twerps having an argument over nothing... One could state that there is a clear correlation between riders who wear helmet cams and those who are looking for an argument.

craprider

point one, if a police car does not have lights and sirens on they are bound to the law same as us - shouldn't be in a bus lane.

point two, people wearing headcams seem to get a lot more near misses than the rest of us.... call me a cynic!

chedabob

Capt Slog wrote:

I was trying to figure out why he was riding where he was, when there was a bus and cycle lane on his inside going the same way.

And then I realised. If he was in that lane he'd have no confrontations at all, and that wouldn't do would it?

Because there's a bus right behind him, so rather than inconvenience the bus driver for the next 4 miles, he used a different lane. He also makes a right turn further up.

Regardless of whether you think the cyclist is a twat or not, the policeman undertook him in a bus lane.

pinno

I think the policemans sunnies just don't suit him at all. What a twonk.

Cleat Eastwood

an interesting point worthy of responding to, if only to get top 4

Redhog14

Seriously though he's got a Range Rover in London, what did you expect? What d'ya mean they don't get to choose?

vitesse169

NapoleonD wrote:

Why?

Officer probably very busy and has no time to deal with a communter who was gleefully fishing for headcam footage to put on youtube.

Well said, plus the 'near miss' was not that near - been in far worse positions and come out unscathed.... ( apart from when officer 'Fez' drove into me at Barton Street Police Station, Gloucester.....!

lucan2

craprider wrote:

point one, if a police car does not have lights and sirens on they are bound to the law same as us - shouldn't be in a bus lane.

Wrong!

thecrofter

Lucan2 wrote:

craprider wrote:

point one, if a police car does not have lights and sirens on they are bound to the law same as us - shouldn't be in a bus lane.

Wrong!

My understanding was that emergency vehicles are bound by the laws, the same as us.

Clearly, they will not be prosecuted when responding to a call, but they are never above the law. And, even if they're responding to a call, and cause an accident, then they will be prosecuted, unless it is "not in the public's interest".

On police, ambulance and fire brigade drivers, the draft guidance advises prosecutors to use discretion in deciding whether or not a prosecution is required in the public interest if an offence is committed while responding to an emergency call.

"It is unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds if a police officer, ambulance driver or firefighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call unless the driving is dangerous or indicates a high degree of culpability,"

I read that as meaning the same laws apply at all times. It's just that the CPS won't proceed unless it's in the public interest.

lucan2

It's the lights and sirens bit that's wrong.

thecrofter

Lucan2 wrote:

It's the lights and sirens bit that's wrong.

Lights and sirens make no difference to the driver's standing in the law. Even when on an emergency call they are still bound by the law.

The CPS and the PF in Scotland take the view that the public interest is not best served by prosecuting emergency drivers who, for example, break the speed limit or drive in bus lanes or go through red lights, when answering an emergency call. However they are still breaking the law, technically, by doing these things. And if they do it dangerously, to the extent that it is against the public interest, then they can and will be prosecuted, even on an emergency.

mfin

The policeman should have apologised, just like any other decent person should. But he didn't. Nevermind, noone was hurt by a bit of crappy slightly aggressive driving in this case