# Very close police car overtake...



## BentMikey (15 May 2010)

Blimey, this was a tad close, an estimated 50cm at speed on blues and twos from my right shoulder. Should I report it?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnH8hjjgbw


I'm not comfortable with being overtaken like that - especially after I made the effort to pull over well early and well before the traffic islands to make it easy for his overtake.


----------



## rusky (15 May 2010)

Considering the road was clear, it was unacceptable. Report it.


----------



## Mark_Robson (15 May 2010)

Wow.......that was way way too close. Even if they are on a call they still need to respect other road users. 
If you report it though I doubt that any action will be taken against them as your still in one piece.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (15 May 2010)

Yes

Doesn't matter what the emergency is, no point creating another emergency in order to get there.

Yes, perhaps there is more "excuse" (I use the word loosely) than the average close pass but given that as mentioned there was no need to pass so close, at the very least the driver should be made aware of how close he got (probably isn't even aware of it, and if not reported, never will be)


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 May 2010)

But BM is not a car...I think is an unacceptable overtake.

Too close when he could have given a bit more space.


----------



## HaloJ (15 May 2010)

Cripes that was close!

Mikey, the rear view seems to have a bit missing between seeing the car in the distance and you exclaiming. I see 45 seconds and then it jumps to 49.

Abs


----------



## DrSquirrel (15 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> I never said he was.



You shouldn't drive that close to vulnerable road users, so the police shouldn't be doing the same. The blue lights do not give them and instant "push the boundaries of safety to their limits"...


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> I never said he was.



Stop being so defensive.My statement was meant in the context of saying if BM was a car then it would have been acceptable to an extent but as he isn't it's not.


----------



## potsy (15 May 2010)

Would expect better from a well trained driver like that tbh,especially as there was plenty of room for the overtake.Can't see you getting much of a response other than 'emergency call' kind of excuse,but might be worth a mention anyway.


----------



## CopperBrompton (15 May 2010)

It would have been way too close if you were moving, but given that you had clearly seen them, pulled over and were stationary, and that there was moving oncoming traffic (which is by definition unpredictable in what it might do), I would say this was ok.

If they had run wider, and then been forced to swerve by the oncoming traffic, things would have been a whole lot less controllable.

We all have different thresholds, of course, but I'd have been happy enough if it had been me rather than you.


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 May 2010)

Don't think I would.I now know why I try and keep well clear.


----------



## BentMikey (15 May 2010)

HaloJ said:


> Cripes that was close!
> 
> Mikey, the rear view seems to have a bit missing between seeing the car in the distance and you exclaiming. I see 45 seconds and then it jumps to 49.
> 
> Abs



Yeah thanks - I'm just trying a re-upload. It was fine in Adobe Premiere, not sure what happened there.


----------



## GrasB (15 May 2010)

It's an absolutely disgraceful piece of driving from someone who has been trained to a high level of competency & completely inappropriate for a high speed pass like that to be made. If it has to be that close then they slow down or if they can go wider they should. 

Sorry lee but no, BM only had to lose balance, something which the wake could cause & he could easily hit the side of the vehicle that's travelling at high speed. Or put it another way had I done a pass that close to a cyclist at highish speeds on my RoSPA examination, the standard that Police drivers should be trained up from what I understand, I'd be instantly failed.


----------



## BentMikey (15 May 2010)

50cm from my right shoulder is enough to make me want to cack my pants when he's doing at least 40mph, if not 50. This is after I'm leaning well over towards the kerb, too. I was NOT happy at the time, and still not now.


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 May 2010)

You mean the cop only had to lose control of his vehicle for whatever reason.


----------



## DrSquirrel (15 May 2010)

Oncoming Traffic? There was none.

Panda? That's a very large "panda" car there... I have to say I assume(d) it's a traffic driver... (do you know/have reasoning for this?)



User3143 said:


> The principle still applies.
> 
> 
> They didn't



A specific distance is the safety limit.
They got closer...
They pushed that safety margin too far, remembering that they are travelling at higher speed than a normal car would as well.

Maybe if you explain yoruself better, but Police running on blue lights are trained to drive safe at speed etc, not to allow them to take unsafe manoeuvres...

No matter how good a driver they are... it doesn't change how safe it was for BM to be in that position...


----------



## BentMikey (15 May 2010)

I thought it might be traffic too, given the extra reflectives on the back. Dunno really, I'll ask my mate. Better hope it's not one of my neighbours - two of them work in Catford station.


----------



## slowmotion (15 May 2010)

Even if I'd been standing on the edge of the pavement as a pedestrian and they bombed through that close, I'd be shook up. To pass that close to a stationary bike in the gutter is appalling, IMVHO.


----------



## style over speed (15 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> It's an absolutely disgraceful piece of driving from someone who has been trained to a high level of competency & completely inappropriate for a high speed pass like that to be made. If it has to be that close then they slow down or if they can go wider they should.



+1, was not expecting to see that... especially after you'd come to a stop


----------



## gaz (15 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I thought it might be traffic too, given the extra reflectives on the back. Dunno really, I'll ask my mate. Better hope it's not one of my neighbours - two of them work in Catford station.



Isn't catford part of lewisham and not bromley?
Is it normal for coppers to be that far out of there districts?


----------



## hackbike 666 (15 May 2010)

Catford railway station?


----------



## 400bhp (16 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No, you are stationary. The Police can see this and overtook accordingly.



Have to agree.


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

drsquirrel said:


> Oncoming Traffic? There was none.


Watch the video again.


----------



## Crankarm (16 May 2010)

The cop probably didn't see you that is why he passed close. He was probably on an emergency run to deliver a birthday card or collect DVDs and pizzas, distracted as he/she was arguing with his/her partner over who wanted which topping and which film to get . Catford btw is an awful area.


----------



## Panter (16 May 2010)

Completely unacceptable driving IMO.
Yes, there's oncoming traffic but as a trained professional, allowance should've been made for the fact there was quite likely to be, given his speed and the fact he's approaching a junction.
I don't see why he was so far inside the White lane whilst overtaking?
No point kiling somebody to attend an emergency call...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (16 May 2010)

Panter said:


> No point kiling somebody to attend an emergency call...



To be fair, he didn't actually do that.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (16 May 2010)

wheres the vid link?


----------



## Sambu (16 May 2010)

bromptonfb said:


> wheres the vid link?




Dito


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> To be fair, he didn't actually do that.



Makes a change then.


----------



## GrasB (16 May 2010)

I've just seen this:



Ben Lovejoy said:


> If they had run wider, and then been forced to swerve by the oncoming traffic, things would have been a whole lot less controllable.


You drive to the what ifs not what usually happens & at that kind of passing distance with 40+mph speed difference is to close end of story. There's no justifying that kind of overtake, it's simply unacceptable. If the driver had to pass that close to keep in control of his vehicle then they were driving to fast for the conditions. In fact the driver could have done a much wider double S pass which would have kept the car in good balance & given BM a very comfortable gap.

Being able to place a car accurately to within a few inches doesn't mean you can pass objects very closely it means you can place the car on the road far more accurately & thus you can give *more* space while continuing to retain a fine degree of control & balance in the vehicle.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 May 2010)

If that was me when accosted with this sort of situation I generally get well out of the way...If it isn't a cop car normally it's a normal car diving out of the way behind me which is a danger.

Yes I know this isn't applicable in this situation.

I have read and seen too many horror stories of this sort of thing.

Also have come across some dodgy driving at times.


----------



## Jezston (16 May 2010)

Yes but where is the video?


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 May 2010)

Jezston said:


> Yes but where is the video?



He's taken it off for now.


----------



## Jezston (16 May 2010)




----------



## Panter (16 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> To be fair, he didn't actually do that.



No, but if BM had fallen to the side.

Ok, it's unlikely that he would havw done but had it been me, first time out on a 'bent, it's a distinct possibility.


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

> It's way too close to be able to compensate for a wobbly cyclist


Mike was stationary.


----------



## Crankarm (16 May 2010)

Panter said:


> No, but *if* BM had fallen to the side.
> 
> Ok, it's unlikely that he would havw done but had it been me, first time out on a 'bent, it's a distinct possibility.



A big *if. *There are a lot of *if*s in this thread.


----------



## GrasB (16 May 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Mike was stationary.


Which would make any flinch which would produce wobble into an almost certain off.



Crankarm said:


> A big *if. *There are a lot of *if*s in this thread.


Incidents generally can't be contributed directly to one single thing. There is almost certainly a single major contributing factor but there are a also lot of "ifs" that don't usually happen all together but at that particular time did. The result if them coming together is an incident.


----------



## GrasB (16 May 2010)

It's people that don't take account of the "what ifs" which make the roads more dangerous by simply ignoring what could happen. Yes it's rare & unusual but it happens, I've been chatting to someone at some lights, they've flinched fallen over, that could have happened to BM. Thus it's an if. As I said incidents are a pile of what ifs that happen at an inopportune time.


----------



## GrasB (16 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No, it's people that take into account the ''what if'' scenarios that make the roads more dangerous for people that don't account for them.
> 
> You could go on all day about ''what if's'' and still come to the same conclusion and on this basis - it's bollox.



If you believe that please do the general public a favor and surrender your driving licence!


----------



## thomas (16 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No, it's people that take into account the ''what if'' scenarios that make the roads more dangerous for people that don't account for them.
> 
> You could go on all day about ''what if's'' and still come to the same conclusion and on this basis - it's bollox.




Surely, "what if" is just anticipation? "What if" that car pulls out...Well, I'll adjust my speed and keep and eye on them just in case...


----------



## GrasB (16 May 2010)

Now you're talking about theoretical what ifs based on no sound scenario which can't be assessed. What I'm talking about is what if...
... what if that person does lose their balance?
... that car decides to push through against priority?
... someone comes round that corner on the wrong side of the road?
... that child runs across the road?
... there's someone I can't see behind that parked car?
These are immediate & assessable risks which can be negated with to some degree or another.


----------



## BentMikey (16 May 2010)

When I manage to get around the Adobe rendering problem, I'll include a new version of the video clip that shows other cars managing overtakes with acceptable distance.

There's no excuse for the police car coming that close, to try to say that was OK is contemptible. I was leaning over towards the kerb at quite an angle, because I was afraid of perhaps having a clipless moment and falling towards the road and the police car.


----------



## Tynan (16 May 2010)

something stopped doesn't wobble, and the police driver is a trained expert surely, usual rules don;t apply, as much


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

I think we're all in broad agreement that we all need to drive and cycle with regard to anticipating what might happen, and I suspect we could also agree that we are often called upon to determine what is a likely scenario and what is an extremely unlikely one. 

Where we may disagree is on the likelihood of Mike falling over in this scenario.

What I saw from the video was an alert cyclist with excellent road-sense spotting the police car in his mirrors a long way ahead, choosing a very sensible place to stop (a long way before the island) and leaning a considerable distance in the direction of the pavement. My assessment of that would be that the likelihood of him falling away from his direction of lean into the road was vanishingly close to zero, while the chances of the oncoming traffic doing something unpredictable was considerably more likely.


----------



## BentMikey (16 May 2010)

You're conveniently ignoring how much space there was to the right of the police car - miles from the oncoming traffic, you could have fit a bus and a half in there. It was 'kin stupid to come that close, inexcusable driving that is all. The other cars managed to overtake just fine. It was close enough to make me jink and lean a little more left as he passed and caused me to cack myself, well figuratively anyway.

You lot who are arguing that the overtake was fine are displaying p1$$ poor empathy. If someone did that to your nearest and dearest, you wouldn't be playing devils advocate that's for sure.

All he had to do was place his offside wheels near the dotted line like the other cars did, and it would have been a perfectly fine overtake, no risks from the oncoming traffic, and no risk to me either.


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

There was space to the right _if_ the oncoming traffic behaved.

As I say, I'd have been happy if it had happened to me, but you clearly aren't happy that it happened to you, so in that case I would bring it to the attention of the police force concerned.


----------



## BentMikey (16 May 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> There was space to the right _if_ the oncoming traffic behaved.
> 
> As I say, I'd have been happy if it had happened to me, but you clearly aren't happy that it happened to you, so in that case I would bring it to the attention of the police force concerned.



Rubbish. There was *LOADS* of space to the right - he wouldn't have had to go anywhere near the oncoming traffic to give me enough room. It didn't even matter where in their lane the oncoming traffic was, there was so much room. Wait till you see the other cars in the new upload, and then you'll realise you're talking tosh here.

Also rubbish on you being OK with that overtake - if you'd been there you too would have shat yourself. You can see me flinch left in the video.

The new version is uploading at the moment, btw. It'll take a while, as the only way I got around the problem is to render it as DVI.


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 May 2010)

Well, we'll agree to disagree on my own feelings about it, I think. :-)


----------



## MacB (17 May 2010)

BM, I think you have one distinct problem with your video. There's a total lack of high pitched, squeaky voiced, terror. Perhaps if you were to edit that in you might get taken more seriously by the authorities. It seems to have worked for another camera cam man.


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

OK, new video is up:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnH8hjjgbw



Ben, I'll prove you're talking rubbish. I want, in all seriousness, for you to meet me with your wife/kids/mother, and get them to stand in the road in same the position my bike was in. Let me then drive past with exactly the same clearance as that police car at the same guestimated 45mph. If you're not willing to do this for real, with a CC'er videoing their and your expressions, then it's obvious you're talking b0ll0cks.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (17 May 2010)

i have to say that us in manchester are used to them sort of gaps as they are part n parcel of our daily commutes. sure it was close, but bendy buses get that close all the time. if however you are not used to that type of passing, i can see how it would make you nervous.


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

Oh come on, this is London, I'm sure the driving is far more pressured here than in Manchester. I get an overtake that close less than once every 50-100 commutes, so at a rough guess that's a 1 in many thousands event.


----------



## TWBNK (17 May 2010)

I would complain or perhaps see if the police would take a copy of the video for training purposes. Personally I would have passed you with a lot more space, but then I only drive the big yellow things. It seems there was plenty of room for a safer overtake.


----------



## dondare (17 May 2010)

Much too close.


----------



## lit (17 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Much too close.



+1 Even more so at the speed he was doing and the special training he will have recieved.

The fact the lady passing looked backed speaks volumes too (though she could have just been looking at your recumbent, not sure).


----------



## TWBNK (17 May 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> What I saw from the video was an alert cyclist with excellent road-sense spotting the police car in his mirrors a long way ahead, choosing a very sensible place to stop (a long way before the island) and leaning a considerable distance in the direction of the pavement. My assessment of that would be that the likelihood of him falling away from his direction of lean into the road was vanishingly close to zero, while the chances of the oncoming traffic doing something unpredictable was considerably more likely.



If the cyclist wasn't a hazard and the oncoming traffic was more of a hazard then perhaps the best place for the police car to be positioned would be further out, allowing emerging traffic from the junction an earlier view, and maybe influencing their decision of whether or not to pull out.


----------



## Vikeonabike (17 May 2010)

PM Sent BM


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 May 2010)

bromptonfb said:


> i have to say that us in manchester are used to them sort of gaps as they are part n parcel of our daily commutes. sure it was close, but bendy buses get that close all the time. if however you are not used to that type of passing, i can see how it would make you nervous.



Bendy Buses are like slugs on wheels...the biggest worry with them is when they pull in.


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Let me then drive past with exactly the same clearance as that police car at the same guestimated 45mph.


Are you a Class 1 police driver, as I imagine your driver was? If so, you're on.


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

So that's a refusal then. Thanks for admitting I'm right.


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> So that's a refusal then. Thanks for admitting I'm right.


No, it's an agreement to a like-for-like experience. If it hadn't been a police response car, I'd have been every bit as upset as you.

Anyway, as I say, let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

Rubbish. The driver is not relevant, the closeness of the pass is. I just told my neighbour (copper), and he laughed at you, saying no reasonable person would place their wife and kids in that situation.

You wouldn't do it, you're just being a keyboard warrior on here. And even if you would, you're then not being particularly sane, and I bet your wife would refuse out of hand. Anyone care to suggest otherwise?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 May 2010)

It doesn't matter how experienced and/or well trained the driver is, that pass was far too close. The air turbulence alone could have caused problems. The fact that it is by a Police Officer just makes it worse, as they *should* know better with all their extra training.

P*ss poor driving.


----------



## HLaB (17 May 2010)

Having just seem the vid I'm not surpised by Mikey's reaction. We can only hope that it was an overtake judged to the n'th degree by a top class driver but it was still a pi$$ poor overtake, which doesn't suggest it was.


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

I've found out that's a dog car apparently, so I don't think they will have the highest level of police driver training. Probably just a blues and twos certification, or something like that. Maybe one of the coppers on here could elaborate on the likely training?


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The driver is not relevant


Like I say, let's just agree to disagree. What matters is that it happened to you, and you're unhappy about it. I wish you success if you decide to pursue it.


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

No Ben, admit your error. You've lost your debate point, move on. You don't have the courage to place your family in a similar situation, so you know you're wrong, and your refusal to admit it is p1$$ poor. I no longer have any respect for your debating, you're all mouth and no trousers.


----------



## Ashtrayhead (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I've found out that's a dog car apparently, so I don't think they will have the highest level of police driver training. Probably just a blues and twos certification, or something like that. Maybe one of the coppers on here could elaborate on the likely training?



The driver would need to be response trained at least and would have had some sort of 'familiarisation' for the vehicle. There are some dog handlers who are also advanced drivers, but that doesn't excuse the overtake, especially when you see that the wing mirror is a gnat's cock from you! 
I don't think the driver saw you as his road position doesn't deviate at all.


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No, it's people that take into account the ''what if'' scenarios that make the roads more dangerous for people that don't account for them.
> 
> You could go on all day about ''what if's'' and still come to the same conclusion and on this basis - it's bollox.



What on earth are you on about?

*People who drive more safely(taking into account possibilities... ifs) are making the road more dangerous for the people that don't??*

Can't you see how crazy that is?



There is a balance needed for the if, and the amount of risk something poses...
Here we have the risks of *speed *and a *vulnerable road user*, matched with (as people want to point out, but wasn't that close) *oncoming traffic*, and maybe the *traffic island*. Tell me, which risks can the driver control... (note: speed + passing distance).

Instead here, they decided not to reduce the speed or increase the passing distance... if they couldn't increase the passing distance because of the oncoming traffic/island, they should have used a more suitable speed.





BentMikey said:


> All he had to do was place his offside wheels near the dotted line like the other cars did, and it would have been a perfectly fine overtake, no risks from the oncoming traffic, and no risk to me either.



People are missing out that oncoming traffic would have most likely been slowing + moving as far to their left...
Even if they didn't "behave" there was still enough room... and after all a clipped wing mirror is a bit better than a broken elbow...




Ben Lovejoy said:


> No, it's an agreement to a like-for-like experience. If it hadn't been a police response car, I'd have been every bit as upset as you.
> 
> Anyway, as I say, let's just agree to disagree.



You need to calm down. I doubt any Class One driver would even want to attempt it anyway, and most people know this... thus people can bravado it up and say "yea sure, my kids can stand there all day and I won't be worried one bit...".


----------



## CopperBrompton (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> No Ben, admit your error. You've lost your debate point, move on. You don't have the courage to place your family in a similar situation, so you know you're wrong, and your refusal to admit it is p1$$ poor. I no longer have any respect for your debating, you're all mouth and no trousers.


Once things reach the level of personal attack, there's no point in continuing. Best of luck, I'm out of here.


----------



## Origamist (17 May 2010)

That was too close. An extra 50cm would have made the overtake a lot less uncomfortable and the police driver would not have had to leave the lane. 

At busy junctions when emergency vehicles approach, I often mount the kerb as traffic often splinters in all directions. I guess on a bent, this is not an option unless there is a dropped kerb close by? That said, in the situation you found yourself in, I'd most likely have done the same thing.


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> This thread has been blown way out of proportion. I honestly think that some cyclists would argue that black is white when it comes to defending other cyclists.
> 
> BM, you need to calm down FFS.
> 
> Squirrel, you miss my point.



I missed or just don't understand your point? It sounds pretty clear to me (I did look for ways it could be misunderstood).

Not all cyclists defend each other, most admit their mistakes and lambast others (well on youtube I see it).

I even got blocked recently because I told a cyclist who posted their video up what I thought.  bit mean of them


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

I still don't see it, your statment was pretty encompasing and is totally opposite of what we would expect.

People that don't take considerations of "ifs" make it more dangerous for people that do (well, for everyone).

But you said it's the people that DO MAKE the consideration that make it more dangerous for those that don't... why? how?

I don't see how this can be helped by anything else - and I am assuming here it's not some ultimate sarcasm.


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

You are just talking now about an annoyance, and are GRASPING AT STRAWS.

To say that the people that consider possible dangers (our lovely ifs) developing ahead cause more danger than a few people that dither about at a RAB are the same thing...

...I don't really know what to say - it's bordering on crazy.


----------



## Crankarm (17 May 2010)

8 seconds in the police vehicle is along side. Would there be any way of accurately measuring the proximity of the police vehicle to the cyclist save re-enacting the pass? The traffic island in the middle of the road APPEARS some way off and there MAY be sufficient room for the police vehicle driver to position his vehicle to give the cyclist more space. There is also a vehicle ahead emerging from a junction on the left, turning right onto the other side of the road to come toward the police vehicle. There does not seem to be any other vehicle approaching the police vehicle on the other side of the road at the time of the pass necessitating the police vehicle to be driven closer to the nearside kerb as occurred.

For this matter to progress BM really has to make a complaint to the police and for them to investigate.


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

Varying small annoyances, but your point is still total and utter rubbish.


----------



## maurice (17 May 2010)

Didn't look that bad to me tbh. I commute in on a 50 limit A-road and get passes that close every day.


----------



## Crankarm (17 May 2010)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *User3143*
> 
> 
> ...








Ben Lovejoy said:


> Like I say, let's just agree to disagree. What matters is that it happened to you, and you're unhappy about it. I wish you success if you decide to pursue it.





BentMikey said:


> No Ben, admit your error. You've lost your debate point, move on. You don't have the courage to place your family in a similar situation, so you know you're wrong, and your refusal to admit it is p1$$ poor. I no longer have any respect for your debating, you're all mouth and no trousers.






drsquirrel said:


> Varying small annoyances, but your point is still total and utter rubbish.





User3143 said:


> No it's not





I seem to have inadvertantly interrupted a big love in .

Or .........fight, fight


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

Here's a streetview link, I couldn't find any cars closer to the spot I pulled over at, but it's pretty close by and IMO the road is the same width. There's loads of room - just look at how much room the red and silver cars gave me, and neither of them had a wheel across the centreline.




Ashtrayhead said:


> I don't think the driver saw you as his road position doesn't deviate at all.



It's possible, this also crossed my mind. Mind, that would still be poor driving given that all the other cars saw me. Or perhaps it's a good argument for not cowering in the gutter like I did in this video since the other cars saw me riding in a normal secondary!!


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

So Lee, would you dare to drive a car exactly like that past Ben's wife and children standing in the road in the same spot as I was parked?


----------



## Crankarm (17 May 2010)

BM - have you thought of fixing one of those flashing amber lights such as tractors, street sweepers and rubbish lorries use, to the back of your recumbent? Might make you more visible. Just a thought. Don't flame me.


----------



## Crankarm (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> So Lee, would you dare to drive a car exactly like that past Ben's wife and children standing in the road in the same spot as I was parked?



Oh please hug and make up .......


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

I don't think I have any problem with being seen. If anything, the reverse is true. Whether people care after seeing me, well that's a whole different problem.


----------



## NigC (17 May 2010)

Well, this thread has certainly stirred things up 

I've had a look and as with a lot of these videos, it's really difficult to appreciate the how such a pass makes you feel. I've had passes of that distance and closer and they're no fun at all  Being stationery may make it a little easier, but it's still scary at that speed.

I'd say, given your obvious frustration with some of the comments, BM, you really have to submit this video to the police and see what response they have.


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No it's not



This is typical of most of your replies, worthless one line statments.

-No its not.
-I didn't mean that.
-You missed the meaning.
-He wasn't moving.
-etc


Which pretty sums up how you are approaching the whole lot, childish.


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Er, no.




...


----------



## BentMikey (17 May 2010)

So that's a no then. I'm not surprised, really, when a several of coppers have said it's not acceptable, and that no reasonable man would overtake his own wife and kids like that.


----------



## Crankarm (17 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> So that's a no then. I'm not surprised, really, when a several of coppers have said it's not acceptable, and that no reasonable man would overtake his own wife and kids like that.



Then make a formal complaint to the police ................. .


----------



## DrSquirrel (17 May 2010)

Maybe post it up on 5ive-*o* and see their opinion?



Crankarm said:


> Then make a formal complaint to the police ................. .



Do we know if he hasn't?


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 May 2010)

I have a perfect police car overtake on vid and yet another dodgy overtake on the Bow flyover,must be due to gutter hugging in all my hi-viz gear.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (17 May 2010)

Mikey, I'm shocked by that. It's like the driver took absolutely no notice of you at all; I'd say you were left less then three feet there. You can see from the front-facing camera that there's at least as much room on the right-hand side of the car between the car and the central markings - the driver could have given you twice as much room without even having to touch the other side of the room. It seems difficult to imagine that the driver didn't see you at all. Reckless if you ask me. I don't know if anything will come from it, but I'd say it's worth bringing to the attention of the police force.

Suggest to them that in future you'd be tempted not to pull in until they got much closer, which would force them to slow down to overtake and actually get on to the other side of the road. If they're not prepared to take account of your safety then there's no reason why you should take account of their convenience.


----------



## 661-Pete (17 May 2010)

Hmmm... difficult call, that one. Don't really want to play devil's advocate here (others on this thread have done that far too effectively ) - and of course the 'bent viewpoint is unfamiliar to me so not easy to judge distances, but I think ... if the police car driver saw that you had pulled over, and saw that his current line of travel was missing you, maybe he took the view and continued in a straight line. Maybe. If it were me I'd let the matter rest. It won't be the first close overtake you, or any of us, have had. Nor the last!

But it was a wholly different matter for me, yesterday, _in the car_. I was just coming out at a very awkward T-junction - this junction as it happens, when I heard the ambulance with blues-and-twos, coming from my right. The front of my car was jutting out somewhat into the fast main road - as I said it's a very awkward junction with poor visibility because of the bends. And the main road is fast. I was wondering whether to back off a bit. But the ambulance driver gave me loads of room - in fact he went right over to the wrong side of the road - and on a double white too!

Perhaps it's because I was in a car. Would he have given me the space if it'd been the bike?


----------



## Mark_Robson (17 May 2010)

IMO the pass was too close, but Policemen are human just like the rest of us and regardless of training they will make mistakes but those mistakes can cost lives.
There was a 16 year old girl killed by a Police car in Newcastle not so long ago and the Policeman involved was jailed for it. He saw a car pass him and he thought that it looked dodgy so he gave chase and accelerated to 70mph in a 30 zone without using his blues or siren. He hit a young girl crossing the road and killed her instantly. In his defence he argued that using his siren and blues would have tipped off the driver of the suspect car and the girl was at fault for walking out into the road. 
As it happens the car was legal and it's occupants were law abiding citizens, but the case goes to show that you shouldn't assume that every Police driver is an expert.


----------



## sadjack (17 May 2010)

Mikey, whatever anyone says, you were there and feel aggreived. I think my response would be to find someone to speak to, submit the video to them more as a training issue, to see the viewpoint of a vulnerable road user and hope that it is taken in the spirit it is offered.

You never know it could be used in future training courses!

Many drivers have no experience of cycling, and no matter how well trained a police driver, their perception of that overtake on a vulnerable user may not be yours. Maybe seeing it could change things.

Just suggesting, that a more concilitory "lets work together" may have more benefits than a head on complaint, but the choice is yours.


----------



## dondare (17 May 2010)

I know that some people here have an ostentatiously macho attitude to using the road; survival of the fittest and all that; but the fact is that that was too close. No reason for it to be and no excuse.


----------



## bigtrike (17 May 2010)

A truly shocking overtake. I recon he(she) did not see you because they looking further down the road at the silver car pulling out of the junction in front of you due to the fact that there was no effort made to deviate from the centre of the land as they overtook.
Report it.
Driving that dangerous should not be tollerated.


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I don't think I have any problem with being seen. If anything, the reverse is true. Whether people care after seeing me, well that's a whole different problem.



But how do you know?

Perhaps the cop if pulled up about it and sees your video may say he didn't see you...SMIDSY and all that.


----------



## shunter (18 May 2010)

Very dangerous overtake by the poice who were obviously speeding although I don't see any evidence of a pursuit of anyone. 

I saw an incident once were this sort of speeding avoided mayhem by a fraction of a second. A police car siren behind and two lanes of a dual carriageway totally blocked with traffic. A lady car driver pulled into the hard shoulder assuming the police car was speeding down the middle of the two lanes. She missed hitting the police car by a second as it was speeding down the hard shoulder. The police driver knew it as he emergency braked and reversed back.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 May 2010)

^^ the thing is, you can either have police cars responding to an emergency and take the risks that come with them driving that way - and who knows, if it was your emergency they were responding to, I bet you wouldn't complain about any risks they took to get there quickly - or you can have police cars that pootle along at the speed limit, stop at every junction and traffic light ... and get there when the emergency is old news.


----------



## dondare (18 May 2010)

When I see emergency vehicles (especially the police) they seem to take a lot of care not to cause or become involved in an accident. How many seconds would it waste to give a cyclist a couple of yards of room?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 May 2010)

True enough - and I agree that the police car in the video should really have left a bit more room. My previous post was responding to Shunter's post, and the point was that occasionally police drivers will get it wrong, no matter how careful they are. It's regrettable, but as I said, if you want them to respond promptly to an emergency, there it is.


----------



## shunter (18 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> ^^ the thing is, you can either have police cars responding to an emergency and take the risks that come with them driving that way - and who knows, if it was your emergency they were responding to, I bet you wouldn't complain about any risks they took to get there quickly - or you can have police cars that pootle along at the speed limit, stop at every junction and traffic light ... and get there when the emergency is old news.



True, which is why every driver given leeway to respond to emergencies or use sirens and emergency lights should be trained to the highest standard - ROSPA. This piece of driving on video is not evidence of that being so. I would like to see the police driver in BM's position with his colleagues driving pass him !!


----------



## Bollo (18 May 2010)

Many years ago, during the last days of the slam-door trains between Pompey and London, I'd sat myself down after boarding waiting for the train to depart. Just before the whistle blew, the door between the seats opened an in climbed Peter White. If you don't know Peter White, he's a Radio 4 regular and presents programmes like 'You and Yours' and 'Pick of the Week'. He's also been on the telly and is the BBC's Disability Affairs Correspondent.

Now Peter White is totally blind. As he hopped into the carriage, I thought about offering help of some kind, but he was clearly someone who travelled regularly by train on his own and knew all the trip hazards associated with the slam doors. I also thought he'd know I as there as, so popular wisdom has it, blind people's sense of hearing is highly developed to compensate for the lack of sight. I moved my bag out of his path and assumed the noise this made would alert him to my presence. Hell, he could probably hear my heart beat!

Anyways, Peter walks to my end of the seat, raises his white stick and hammers me around the ankles! Then the bugger does it again! He's going at me like Patrick Bateman in American Psycho!! I give a loud, slightly strangled cough. He looks puzzled, gives me one last lashing just to make sure, and then sits down opposite without a word of regret.

The morals of this rambling (and true) tale......

There's a good distance between expertise and infallibility.
Don't expect an apology!





Quiet day at the office.


----------



## Origamist (18 May 2010)

"A Cyclist Knob with a Camera"

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/bdbae3945d2eaec8#


----------



## BentMikey (18 May 2010)

Is it really necessary to post links to a troll/demon pit like URC? There's no point in hanging out there at all, which is why URCM was created.


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 May 2010)

God that looks worse every time I see it.

That cop pass on my c74 video is much better...he made such an effort the cop car driver was nearer the car to the right than to me to the left.


----------



## BentMikey (18 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> God that looks worse every time I see it.



Do you mean uk.rec.cycling or the overtake? Could easily be true for either, uk.rec.cycling used to be a nice place to hang out on.


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Do you mean uk.rec.cycling or the overtake? Could easily be true for either, uk.rec.cycling used to be a nice place to hang out on.



Your vid.


----------



## Origamist (18 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Is it really necessary to post links to a troll/demon pit like URC? There's no point in hanging out there at all, which is why URCM was created.



URC makes me laugh, URCM doesn't...


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 May 2010)

Origamist said:


> URC makes me laugh, URCM doesn't...



If that's was what I was just looking at they seem like very bitter motorists.


----------



## BentMikey (18 May 2010)

Yeah, I feel quite sorry for them. Life must be very bad to make posts like that, and to groupie on a cycling forum when they are very likely not cyclists.


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 May 2010)

Just saw the video, he was too close and there was no need for it, Mikey swore though so he should be executed.


----------



## Origamist (18 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> If that's was what I was just looking at they seem like very bitter motorists.



They're more wind-up merchants, but they reflect the views of a sizeable number of motorists...


----------



## Vikeonabike (18 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> Just saw the video, he was too close and there was no need for it, Mikey swore though so he should be executed.



Executed Catrike, a bit harsh that. However I just watched the vid with the sound up......




Mickey
Ticket in the post Section 5 POA (That girl looked harrased and distressed by your outburst). Sign it and send it back with £80 c/o PC Vike,


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 May 2010)

Vikeonabike said:


> Mickey
> Ticket in the post Section 5 POA (That girl looked harrased and distressed by your outburst). Sign it and send it back with £80 c/o PC Vike,



We are all disapointed in Mikey...I thought he was a top cyclist with impeccible manners.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2010)

LOL @ Vike!

I reckon I'd contest that one, IANAL but I'm sure having some clown swing a lethal weapon that close to me is reasonable justification for an exclamation of shock!!


----------



## magnatom (19 May 2010)

I've been away (watching the crazy no lights at night cyclists of London!!). Anyway, let me put this simply.

It was a very VERY poor overtake. Blues or not, that was completely unacceptable. End of. Mikey I hope you have reported that. I think the local police need a little reminder of their responsibilities to other road users.


----------



## Tinuts (19 May 2010)

That driver could easily have moved over to effect a safer overtake but failed to do so. I can understand that he would have seen you had stopped in order to allow him clear passage but I still think it was way too close - especially at that speed.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

Went back and measured, it looks like the car's left hand side was ~125cm from the kerb, and my right shoulder was ~70cm, giving me 55cm of space. The road is 4.5m wide, from the kerb to the centreline at that point.

All other cars overtaking me there seem to pass almost twice as far from the kerb as that driver did, and all without putting wheels across the centreline. The 1.5m they give me is *lovely*, whilst the 55cm that driver gave me is pretty poor driving, considering how much faster he was going.


----------



## Origamist (20 May 2010)

No one on this thread has made a compelling case as to why the police driver could not have given you at least another 50cm clearance, preferably more.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (20 May 2010)

Origamist said:


> No one on this thread has made a compelling case as to why the police driver could not have given you at least another 50cm clearance, preferably more.


Is that because there isn't one? Do I get a prize??


----------



## magnatom (20 May 2010)

Have you reported it BM? I may have missed that in the thread.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

I'm going to start with the informal route, since I have a mate who knows someone in the dog section in Catford.


----------



## magnatom (20 May 2010)

Fairy nuff.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

Another mate, GruB (some of you will remember him) said that's best, assuming he passes the attitude test, can always do the formal route if need be. LOL!


----------



## jonny jeez (20 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> No, you are stationary. The Police can see this and overtook accordingly.



+1...the police can clearly see that you have anticipated their presence (well done, for being aware and for communicatiing that to them so clearly) and drive close to you as they cannot assume oncomming traffic has the same awareness.

They drove exactley as they are trained.

nothing to report, I'm surprised you cant see this.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

Jonny, that really is p1ss poor. I'll offer you the same challenge I offered Ben. Put your family standing in the road exactly where I was, and you can drive past at 55cm clearance at 45mph. If you do not accept this for real, and allow us to video it, then you're talking b0ll0cks. And that's pretty contemptible, extremely disrespectful to my life.

Three separate policemen have said this was too close.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Jonny, that really is p1ss poor. I'll offer you the same challenge I offered Ben. Put your family standing in the road exactly where I was, and you can drive past at 55cm clearance at 45mph. If you do not accept this for real, and allow us to video it, then you're talking b0ll0cks. And that's pretty contemptible, extremely disrespectful to my life.
> 
> Three separate policemen have said this was too close.



calm down Mikey, its not p!ss poor and I dont want to accept your challange if its all the same to you, thanks.

Sure it was close, and sure it scared you as it would scare me (or my family if you insisted on staging some bizarre re-enactment.)

Thats not the point....read my reply again. When did I say it wasnt close?

I'm pretty sure I said it WAS close

but I am telling you *why *they drove close to you and not close to the middle.

Perhaps (looking at the lenght of posts, which i dont have time to read) you have been told by some that it was not close or something??...not by me


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

> Oncoming traffic doesn't come into it.



Exactly. All the other drivers at the time left me 1.5m clearance without even trying, and without putting their wheels across the centreline.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

Good, well then stop talking utter rubbish. I found Ben's comments extremely offensive, and your one above was getting along the same lines. I'm glad you at least have the grace to admit it.

You haven't said why they drove so dangerously close to me, btw. There's no sane reason why they would do that. None of the circumstances would make that driving either good or acceptable to the man in the street, much less a trained driver. A trained driver is not trained to drive like that.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Good, well then stop talking utter rubbish. I found Ben's comments extremely offensive, and your one above was getting along the same lines. I'm glad you at least have the grace to admit it.
> 
> You haven't said why they drove so dangerously close to me, btw. There's no sane reason why they would do that. None of the circumstances would make that driving either good or acceptable to the man in the street, much less a trained driver. A trained driver is not trained to drive like that.



what?..how?...er...are we reading the same thing here?!!!

I can see that you are pretty worked up over this Mikey so best i dont try to pick apart your reply (genuinely, you are reading me wrong on this one)...all I can say is, yes it was close and clearly close enough to worry you (and most people i would assume). But I can see why they took it close (perhaps they just misjudged HOW close they were) as it would seem the safer of two evils.

Don't have time to read bens posts but am happy to take your word for it.

Now, relax.... (Proffers mug of tea)


----------



## dondare (20 May 2010)

Good drivers don't leave no room for error (theirs or someone elses).
The pass was too close regardless of the circumstances or the skill of the driver.


----------



## Norm (20 May 2010)

I had a little cogitate on this one when I was out yesterday. 

I stopped to take off my outer layer and I was noticeably more wobbly and less stable when stationary with one foot on the ground than I am when I'm riding. Now, I was on a "proper" () bike rather than a 'bent so the extra height would have amplified the instability but I'd still want _at least_ as much room for a pass when stationary than when riding.

I also can't see any reason why the car didn't use all of the width of his own lane to make a safer pass on the bike. I think having a little word in the officer's ear might be a good thing, and maybe making him the offer of standing there whilst you drive past him at 45mph.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 May 2010)

> I can't. Can you elaborate?



I would say "read my reply" but then I'm as guilty as everyone for not doing that.

suffice to say, yes i can, But I cant be arsed to go over it again.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

How can the lesser of two evils be driving so fast and dangerously close to a cyclist, leaving masses of safe room to the right of the police car?

The alternative is so easy even an idiot driver could manage it:
* Wide safe and almost straight line.
* No possibility of conflict with oncoming traffic.
* Offside wheels near the centreline of the road, but far from across it.
* Perfect alignment through the traffic islands for his approaching left turn.

Clearly the second option is by far the safer for both him and myself. Again, all the other drivers managed a similar line easily, but not this driver.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

The only elaboration we need is that you're unwilling to place your own family in that position. That proves my point perfectly.


----------



## Riding in Circles (20 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The only elaboration we need is that you're unwilling to place your own family in that position. That proves my point perfectly.



I would be willing to put my ex wife in that position, in fact I may be tempted to give her a push at the opportune moment as well.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

LMAO!!

On that note, let me get the teas/coffees....


----------



## Cyclist33 (20 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Blimey, this was a tad close, an estimated 50cm at speed on blues and twos from my right shoulder. Should I report it?
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnH8hjjgbw
> ...




I should imagine that they knew exactly what they were doing and have driven that car faster through trickier situations than past a bloke on a recumbent bike who's already clearly stopped.

What are you fussing about?!

Cyc


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

Cyclist33 said:


> I should imagine that they knew exactly what they were doing and have driven that car faster through trickier situations than past a bloke on a recumbent bike who's already clearly stopped.
> 
> What are you fussing about?!
> 
> Cyc




Bollocks.


----------



## Crankarm (20 May 2010)

BM - have you made an official complaint to the police yet?


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2010)

No, I'm going to go the informal route, one of my neighbours is a copper and knows someone in the dog section where this car is apparently from. A quiet word may be effective enough since I only want for this driver to learn from their mistake, I don't need a pound of flesh with it.

Besides, I feel it might be wise not to go the formal route, perhaps that's a little overly paranoid but I'm used to police in Africa who may sometimes have fewer scruples about comeback on complaints.


----------



## Crankarm (20 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> No, I'm going to go the informal route, one of my neighbours is a copper and knows someone in the dog section where this car is apparently from. A quiet word may be effective enough since I only want for this driver to learn from their mistake, I don't need a pound of flesh with it.
> 
> Besides, *I feel it might be wise not to go the formal route, perhaps that's a little overly paranoid but I'm used to police in Africa who may sometimes have fewer scruples about comeback on complaints*.



You think the driver concerned might try to run you down next time or set Fido on you ? I don't think so.


----------



## Cyclist33 (20 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Bollocks.



A compelling counter-argument.


----------



## lit (20 May 2010)

Cyclist33 said:


> A compelling counter-argument.



As "compelling" as yours.


----------



## Cyclist33 (21 May 2010)

Well, setting aside your attempt at irony for a minute, no it isn't.

I bet the camera exaggerates the proximity anyway.


----------



## lit (21 May 2010)

Meow.

Quit whilst you were never ahead "cyclist".


----------



## Cyclist33 (21 May 2010)

How many times have you used that line before? It's nice to see you defending your buddy's overreaction though. Are you a recumbrist, too?


----------



## lit (21 May 2010)

Getting pretty desperate now.


----------



## Cyclist33 (21 May 2010)

Desperate? I'm not the one acting as someone else's mouthpiece and defending "Bollocks." as if it's some kind of clincher.

This is too easy anyway. You're too easy.


----------



## lit (21 May 2010)

ok sweetie, keep telling yourself that.


----------



## gaz (21 May 2010)

Cyclist33 said:


> Well, setting aside your attempt at irony for a minute, no it isn't.
> 
> I bet the camera exaggerates the proximity anyway.



Clearly you know nothing about cameras. Items at the extreme sides of the lens, appear to be further away than they are. the wider the lens the worst it is. So in fairness, it was probably closer than it looked!


----------



## Cyclist33 (21 May 2010)

gaz said:


> Clearly you know nothing about cameras. Items at the extreme sides of the lens, appear to be further away than they are. the wider the lens the worst it is. So in fairness, it was probably closer than it looked!



Bollocks.

(It worked for the other feller.)


----------



## lit (21 May 2010)

lol you're a bit special aren't you.


----------



## Cyclist33 (21 May 2010)

I prefer "consistent with my logic" but you can call it special if you like.

My aunt called it "special" and then she robbed me of my virginity when I was 14, using one of those Specialized mini air pumps. I've never been the same since. The cops were very helpful though so maybe I'm biased in their favour because of that. And probably biased against you too for the inversely-equivalent reason.

You're not my aunt, are you?


----------



## BentMikey (21 May 2010)

I went back and measured it the other day. 55cm clearance at 45mph. That's not what any good driver does, especially not a trained one. Unless they made a fairly stupid mistake.


----------



## Crankarm (21 May 2010)

Room 101?


----------



## BentMikey (21 May 2010)

I can always take it to an official complaint if the driver fails the attitude test, but I think it's more likely that he will accept his mistake and move on.


----------



## BentMikey (24 May 2010)

...and here is another video showing just how rubbish the police overtake was, and how stupid those comments saying his overtake was fine are.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEiNxyxzHk


You can safely fit a 'kin double decker bus in there, with loads of overtaking space, with me slightly further out, and without going across the line. Oh, and still following a fast straight line.


----------



## magnatom (24 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> ...and here is another video showing just how rubbish the police overtake was, and how stupid those comments saying his overtake was fine are.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZEiNxyxzHk
> ...





Good video. It made me go back and look at the police overtake again. You can see how far its offside tyres are from the centre line. Plenty of room to move out further.


----------



## GrasB (24 May 2010)

BM; On a side note what is that little black box you have on the frame there? I've seen you press a button several times in your videos but can't work out what it's doing.


----------



## BentMikey (24 May 2010)

Oh, the one on the main tube, just behind the headset? That's the remote control for the video camera. This camera records in a loop, so press the record/tag button, and it dumps the loop to the SD card. No press, and it discards the loop when it starts a new one.


----------



## Crankarm (24 May 2010)

The scene of the crime looks like the top of Bromley Hill going toward Bromley as you approach the side junctions on the left of Park Avenue and London Lane.

*Why isn't this thread in Room 101 yet?*


----------



## Origamist (24 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> *Why isn't this thread in Room 101 yet?*



Maybe because you have not posted enough on it


----------



## Crankarm (24 May 2010)

Origamist said:


> Maybe because you have not posted enough on it



But now you are, it's a cert .


----------



## hackbike 666 (24 May 2010)

So what is the verdict?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (24 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> So what is the verdict?


It's the bit after the Jurors have deliberated the evidence and return their opinion... isn't it?


----------



## hackbike 666 (24 May 2010)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> It's the bit after the Jurors have deliberated the evidence and return their opinion... isn't it?



Dunno


----------



## gaz (24 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Oh, the one on the main tube, just behind the headset? That's the remote control for the video camera. This camera records in a loop, so press the record/tag button, and it dumps the loop to the SD card. No press, and it discards the loop when it starts a new one.



Don't listen to him. thats his little motor that he hides in this tail box!


----------



## GrasB (24 May 2010)

I'm more likely to believe BM but your explanation gives riders hope gaz


----------

