Tony Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 As much as i respect the police this one was a tit.... Please wait a few moments for Video to Load! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 That copper was quite stupid but the other guy is the tit imho. Ran a red light, and then was behaving like a w****r - if I was that policeman I wouldn't have answered any of his stupid questions, and just called in for backup. That guy needed to be put in cuffs just to teach him a lesson...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 the police officer was foolish not to simply warn the cyclist, flippant use of possition and evasive questioning is not how our police force should act. Quite right for people to want training for those who are served to protect us. the cyclist was well within his rights to question the law being applied and the officers lack of honesty. There are many instances of incorrect inturpritation of the law and people giving their details (in essence accepting guilt of the crime) when keeping quiet and following the processes put in place to protect us would be a much fairer turn of events for both the officer and accused. as anal and akward as the cyclist can be seen to be, i respect him for not laying down and being walked over against the law.......... he wouldnt have been stopped if he hadnt run a red light though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 he wouldnt have been stopped if he hadnt run a red light though To me that's the key point - couldn't care less about a moron who preaches about the law after breaking it. If you run a red light, you stand the risk of getting a fine. You get caught, just take the ticket, really got no respect for that guy even if he was well within his rights. I don't agree with the policeman's behaviour either, but between the two he is the lesser of two evils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorps Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 If i was the cyclist i would'nt of stopped for the copper, you got more chance of getting away on a bike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 I don't agree with the policeman's behaviour either, but between the two he is the lesser of two evils. i see it differently in so much as the policeman was abusing his privalaged possition by missguiding the cyclist. No matter what the crime, a Policeman is held by a code, they should always be on the moral higher ground by not lying. On this occasion, he wasnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Cyclists have no MOT, tax or insurance and yet use the road, they can hardly be held in the same regard as a motor vehicle but should respect the traffic signals if only to safeguard others, in other words if i walked through a red light who cares, but if doing so i caused a crash then it's another story. I feel in this case to copper had "reason" but failed to know why and how to implement his position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorps Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 I feel in this case to copper had "reason" but failed to know why and how to implement his position. Then, if he doesn't know the law or its wording he should resign and become a traffic warden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Can't argue with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Yep that policeman definitely needs to learn some facts, or just shut up! My judgement could be slightly clouded, I've been almost run over so many times by cyclists running red lights in central london that it really pi**es me off (even worse when they go the wrong way down one way streets which happens more often than you'd think it would) I agree with everything that's been said, and we all love to hate policemen - but I can't stand pr*cks who break the law and then preach about it, the behaviour of scum. Just out of curiosity, if a motorist had done the same thing and behaved in that manner, what would have happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorps Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Just out of curiosity, if a motorist had done the same thing and behaved in that manner, what would have happened? Now thats a police chase i'd like to see....Car V Bicycle I guess back up would of been called for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phipck Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Cyclists have no MOT, tax or insurance and yet use the road, they can hardly be held in the same regard as a motor vehicle but should respect the traffic signals if only to safeguard others, in other words if i walked through a red light who cares, but if doing so i caused a crash then it's another story. I feel in this case to copper had "reason" but failed to know why and how to implement his position. i was always under the impression that roads were put in place for people. If a person wishes to use the road they can, whether it be walking, cycling or driving. The reason for road tax on vehicals was because of the wear and tear using a heavy vehical causes, therefore offsetting the cost of road maintenance. It does not give people driving any more rights to the road than pedestrians or cyclist, it was always the case that if using a larger vehical on the road they you should be mindful of the more at risk road users, ie pedestrians or bikes if you are driving a car. Equally cars should be considered when driving a lorry and pedestrians should be considered if you are cycling and i completely understand parthiban's distain for those cyclists who do not pay consideration to this rule of consideraton. i think people forget that using the road is not something that those who drive only have the rights to. We all have the right to use them as they are "public roads", paying road tax is meant to merely offset your cars wear and tear to that surface (although road tax is all based on emissions now). we all feel bitter that as drivers we have to pay for something that cyclists and pedestrians dont, but I drive and i cycle. so remember that most cyclist that you come accross and apply a possibly unfair pre-established distain for, have equal right to use the road as the rest of us and have typically already paid road tax for the car they chose to leave at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Cyclists have no MOT, tax or insurance and yet use the road, they can hardly be held in the same regard as a motor vehicle but should respect the traffic signals if only to safeguard others, in other words if i walked through a red light who cares, but if doing so i caused a crash then it's another story. I feel in this case to copper had "reason" but failed to know why and how to implement his position. But cyclists are required to follow the Highway Code. Here is the relevant bit:- 69 You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)] 71 You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178). [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)] So the (very incompetent) copper should have answered "I have stopped you because you failed to comply with requirements of the Highway Code covered by Section 36 of the Road Traffic Acts" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthiban Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 So the (very incompetent) copper should have answered "I have stopped you because you failed to comply with requirements of the Highway Code covered by Section 36 of the Road Traffic Acts" Spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.