# Police Pull Cyclist Over/ Interesting Watch



## Cycling Dan (11 May 2013)

An interesting watch.


----------



## ianrauk (11 May 2013)

Mountain out of a molehill.....................


----------



## GrasB (11 May 2013)

Having a bit of a go at a police officer in public was never going to end well. Though I can't see how it ended as it freezes at 3:06 for me.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (11 May 2013)

The first thing to note is that as the cyclist enters the bus lane to his left is a large blue sign, this is a legal requirement for bus lanes which do not have 24 hour vehicle restrictions placed upon them (the sign states the times of the restrictions) as such the police could be well within the law, but without being aware of the time, date and road it is impossible to comment.
Secondly it is not actually a road traffic offence to enter a bus lane within 20 meters of the junction where the bus lane and road join if you are turning left at the next junction and this has not been established.
Thirdly the cyclist is hypocritical quoting road traffic rules as he rides though a green traffic light with a pedestrian on the curb without the slightest hesitation. A green light does not mean keep going, the highway code states it means.. "you may go on, if the way is clear. Take care if you are turning left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing".. So like all of us, he is not perfect or in a position to preach.
Fourthly he was an idiot to look for trouble and act surprised when he found it. Imho


----------



## steve52 (11 May 2013)

well if he couldent see that coming he a fool, (cyclist) the police? not fit for purpose. sitting in a bus lane, doing nothing about the others sitting in it, and want petty revenge when its pointed out,well done lads, we do expect more of our police officers.but a human reaction none the less


----------



## Cubist (11 May 2013)

Just a couple of questions.

What time were the bus lane restrictions? 
What time was the video taken?

Until we know this we cannot comment.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (11 May 2013)

I'm curious regarding why the last bit was tosh?
He created a situation by provoking another human being, the fact they are police makes no difference as his action was likely to create a response. The fact he acted like the response was not justified amused me greatly.
I personally doubt the police would have even noticed him going past if he had not touched their vehicle.... If a motorist acted like that to a cyclist, and when confronted about the behaviour started swearing and acting in an aggressive manner it would be considered to be road rage.


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 May 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I'm curious regarding why the last bit was tosh?
> He created a situation by provoking another human being, the fact they are police makes no difference as his action was likely to create a response. The fact he acted like the response was not justified amused me greatly.
> I personally doubt the police would have even noticed him going past if he had not touched their vehicle.... If a motorist acted like that to a cyclist, and when confronted about the behaviour started swearing and acting in an aggressive manner it would be considered to be road rage.


No all but the last bit lol. I double checked what i wrote and it does make sense.
Maybe *but < apart* reads better.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (11 May 2013)

You are going to have to be clearer and state what you disagree with, if you would like me to justify my comments because right now I do not understand.

Point one talks about the sign which shows the bus lane is not restricted 247
Point two shows where the police car was it was not actually against the law when he tapped on the window
Point three shows he was not perfect in complying with the highway code as such he is being hypocritical as he is holding others to standards he does not meet
Point four was my views on his actions


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2013)

Point of this is what exactly?

Ner ner I've got you on camera. Bell end


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (11 May 2013)




----------



## Alan Frame (11 May 2013)

And my nomination for next Ambassador For Cycling is....


----------



## Matthew_T (11 May 2013)

The cyclist was a bit rude in this situation. There was nothing wrong knocking on the window or pointing out that they were in a bus lane, however getting into a shouting match and swearing wont earn you any brownie points.
I dont know why the officer wanted the cyclists details and there is no such law as "careless cycling".


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (11 May 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> The cyclist was a bit rude in this situation. There was nothing wrong knocking on the window or pointing out that they were in a bus lane, however getting into a shouting match and swearing wont earn you any brownie points.
> I dont know why the officer wanted the cyclists details and there is no such law as "careless cycling".


He only knocked the window of the police car. He set out to be a complete tit and achieved that + some for good measure.


----------



## Sittingduck (11 May 2013)

What a douche


----------



## HLaB (11 May 2013)

Lol


----------



## boydj (11 May 2013)

F-----g know-it-all pillock -- why knock on only the police car window? I, for one, would rather have the police on the side of cyclists, so to go around winding them up, then post it on the internet, is totally counter-productive.


----------



## on the road (11 May 2013)

Is that was happens when you get a helmet cam? 

I'm glad I can't afford one.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2013)

Does anyone know what road this is? there is a sign at the start of the bus lane which we can't see in the video but will tell us if any of those vehicles are legally allowed to be in it at any point.


----------



## HLaB (11 May 2013)

gaz said:


> Does anyone know what road this is? there is a sign at the start of the bus lane which we can't see in the video but will tell us if any of those vehicles are legally allowed to be in it at any point.


Its the Road trough the middle of the meadows in Edinburgh
Edit Google might be out of date it was a cycle lane in 2011
Edit 2: Its not; its a part time bus lane


----------



## Cycling Dan (11 May 2013)

In all fairness if it does turn out that they were in there illegally then I hope you all sham them police officers. Very piss poor of them if so. Granted the cyclist used the wrong approach but if right well hes right. The police should have been giving out tickets to all of them cars in that bus lane not joining them. In a case of such they prob could have called for another car. £60+ each car- they would have made their moneys worth.


----------



## theFire (11 May 2013)

I came across a police car in an ASL on Friday morning (didn't see if he entered it on a Red light or not).... I looked at the officer in the passenger seat, he looked at me, I looked down at the ASL... he knew what I was getting at. I turned away and didn't look at him again.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2013)

HLaB said:


> Its the Road trough the middle of the meadows in Edinburgh
> Edit Google might be out of date it was a cycle lane in 2011
> Edit 2: Its not; its a part time bus lane


As I thought, now all we need to know is what time and what day it happened.


----------



## Radchenister (11 May 2013)

'I've got you on camera' - might make that my new catch phrase.

Remember, occasionally people used to punch Jeremy Beadle  !


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO3BvGEWT9c


----------



## boydj (11 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> In all fairness if it does turn out that they were in there illegally then I hope you all sham them police officers. Very **** poor of them if so. Granted the cyclist used the wrong approach but if right well hes right. The police should have been giving out tickets to all of them cars in that bus lane not joining them. In a case of such they prob could have called for another car. £60+ each car- they would have made their moneys worth.


Given the amount of newsprint given over to complaints about bus-lane cameras, and the fines they generated, in Edinburgh earlier this year, I'd be surprised if the bus-lane was actually operational at the time.


----------



## snorri (11 May 2013)

Embra polis seem to have gone a bit soft in recent years


----------



## Hip Priest (12 May 2013)

A self-righteous moron creating an incident out of nothing. The policeman should've coshed him.


----------



## avalon (12 May 2013)

Entertaining. I'd like to know how it all endes.


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2013)

snorri said:


> Embra polis seem to have gone a bit soft in recent years


 
Absolutely, they lost face a bit as they never did get his details and let him ride off. If the arrogant knob had done that in the "good old days" he would have been thrown in a cell to reconsider his attitude. Is this really what we call progress? The guy is a complete and utter to55er.


----------



## Alan Frame (12 May 2013)

I'm guessing that the legal-encyclopaedia-on-a-bike was only being asked for his details because he'd failed the "attitude test" and the officer wanted to inconvenience him, or put the wind up him in some way.

The cyclist is not going to win any friends with an attitude like that and is always going to find trouble when actively seeking it out.


----------



## Cubist (12 May 2013)

Just for balance, he tells us that the bus lane was operative at the time, the time being just after 8 am and the bus lane restrictions in place until 0930. 

I have no opinion to add regarding the exchange that follows.


----------



## G3CWI (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> An interesting watch.


 
Great way to reinforce the stereotype that in the view of many people, cyclists are nobbers. That's really helped us all. Ta matey.


----------



## Mugshot (12 May 2013)

G3CWI said:


> Great way to reinforce the stereotype that in the view of many people, cyclists are nobbers. That's really helped us all. Ta matey.


You do know it's not Dan don't you?


----------



## G3CWI (12 May 2013)

Mugshot said:


> You do know it's not Dan don't you?


 
Thanks for that. I had not realised. Sorry Dan!


----------



## Banjo (12 May 2013)

Just out of interest, if you havent done anything illegal are you obliged to give your details or prove your identity to a police officer?


----------



## snorri (12 May 2013)

Banjo said:


> Just out of interest, if you havent done anything illegal are you obliged to give your details or prove your identity to a police officer?


 The courts will decide in due course if you have done something illegal or not.
In this case there was a contact between a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle, so there were reasonable grounds for suspicion of an illegal act. (IMV)


----------



## on the road (12 May 2013)

Probably the reason they didn't arrest him was because it would meant lots of paperwork for something trivial.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

Like a lot of people say to ones with cameras who upload non events or things they perceive as such. Why couldn't the police not just take the criticism/ take it on the chin , move on yada yada. Rather than make up some BS to stop the cyclists and escalate the situation due to them being in the wrong in the first place. From the seems of things the police officers were wrong to be in the bus lane. Also they were not enforcing it. In other words not doing their job. Maybe Im alone in thinking this but the original reason why this started was due to the police officers breaking laws they are placed there to enforce. Im going vs the flow here so no head biting off actions.

PS. I think the cyclist handled it incorrectly. I wouldn't have touched the car/ window. Just looked in to get their faces or so them report them. Then getting flustered at being pulled over didnt make a nice sight


----------



## gaz (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Like a lot of people say to ones with cameras who upload non events or things they perceive as such. Why couldn't the police not just take the criticism/ take it on the chin rather than make up, move on yada yada. Rather than make up some BS to stop the cyclists and escalate the situation due to them being in the wrong in the first place. From the seems of things the police officers were wrong to be in the bus lane. Also they were not enforcing it. In other words not doing their job. Maybe Im alone in thinking this but the original reason why this started was due to the police officers breaking laws they are placed there to enforce. Im going vs the flow here to so head biting off actions.


Hold on, we can't say they aren't doing their job, we don't know what kind of police they are and as such don't know what their job is.
To me, they don't look like traffic cops, and as such their primary job isn't to deal with traffic offences.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

gaz said:


> Hold on, we can't say they aren't doing their job, we don't know what kind of police they are and as such don't know what their job is.
> To me, they don't look like traffic cops, and as such their primary job isn't to deal with traffic offences.


Granted- To much to the maybe. Although would they not have the power/equipment to do so. Traffic police or not. They didn't look like they were on call/another job but then again it is a maybe. This is why reporting would have been better than confronting them as the higher ranking officer would have all the info.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Like a lot of people say to ones with cameras who upload non events or things they perceive as such. Why couldn't the police not just take the criticism/ take it on the chin , move on yada yada. Rather than make up some BS to stop the cyclists and escalate the situation due to them being in the wrong in the first place. From the seems of things the police officers were wrong to be in the bus lane. Also they were not enforcing it. In other words not doing their job. Maybe Im alone in thinking this but the original reason why this started was due to the police officers breaking laws they are placed there to enforce. Im going vs the flow here so no head biting off actions.
> 
> PS. I think the cyclist handled it incorrectly. I wouldn't have touched the car/ window. Just looked in to get their faces or so them report them. Then getting flustered at being pulled over didnt make a nice sight


 
I think you should have more respect for the police. Without them, the country wouldn't be a beautiful, crime-free utopia. It'd be chaos. They do a difficult job with one hand tied behind their back and they shouldn't have to put up with self-righteous herberts giving them grief over nowt.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I think you should have more respect for the police. Without them, the country wouldn't be a beautiful, crime-free utopia. It'd be chaos. They do a difficult job with one hand tied behind their back and they shouldn't have to put up with self-righteous herberts giving them grief over nowt.


My view is too idealistic is what you're looking for. Logic being if you can flout the little things at what point does it become acceptable to flout larger/major laws. In this case it is a minor thing but as you can see it has a knock on effect and that was all the other cars flouted the bus lanes timings as well. 1.. 2... 3
Also you are incredible wrong on the respect aspect. I have great respect for the police but there is nothing wrong with criticising them when they get it wrong. Also maybe you should stay on the task in hand. I didnt say without the police it would be Disney perfect but that does not mean they cant be criticised. Im sure you have done it all the time.


----------



## gaz (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Granted- To much to the maybe. Although would they not have the power/equipment to do so. Traffic police or not. They didn't look like they were on call/another job but then again it is a maybe. This is why reporting would have been better than confronting them as the higher ranking officer would have all the info.


Well considering that it's actually the councils that generally hand out fines regarding bus lanes, I really wouldn't expect them to waste their time. Yes the police can still do it but they generally don't.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

gaz said:


> Well considering that it's actually the councils that generally hand out fines regarding bus lanes, I really wouldn't expect them to waste their time. Yes the police can still do it but they generally don't.


Ok. Maybe overstepped on knowledge of fine handing out but again I stand by the fact they flouted the timings and it promoted other to do it as well. They should set the example. Sorry if this is too idealistic


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

gaz said:


> Well considering that it's actually the councils that generally hand out fines regarding bus lanes, I really wouldn't expect them to waste their time. Yes the police can still do it but they generally don't.


If I wanted to play to popular motorist groups views BS this would be their dream come true.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 May 2013)

theFire said:


> I came across a police car in an ASL on Friday morning (didn't see if he entered it on a Red light or not).... I looked at the officer in the passenger seat, he looked at me, I looked down at the ASL... he knew what I was getting at. I turned away and didn't look at him again.


Thats all anyone needs to do to get their attention. The cyclist in the video could have just stopped besides the car and looked down or pointed to the bus lane and that would have been enough to get their attention.

Actually, it probably wouldnt have due to their lack of knowledge when they approached the cyclist.


----------



## snorri (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> . They didn't look like they were on call/another job


 I'm at a loss to understand how you have come to that conclusion.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 May 2013)

snorri said:


> I'm at a loss to understand how you have come to that conclusion.


The clear representation of going on a call is having flashing lights and sirens ablaze. They didnt, so one would generally assume that they are not acting as police officers but normal citizens.

A police vehicle/officer has to abide by the same laws as everyone else if they are not on a call and if there is not an emergency. If they are not signalling that there is an emergency, then they are classed as normal citizens and will be subject to the same punishment for law breaking as everyone else is.
If a police vehicle set a speed camera off when they were not responding to a call then the driver would get a fine and points on his license, just like everyone else who drives.

Laws are laws and police officers are not above them.


----------



## 400bhp (12 May 2013)

This still going on


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> The clear representation of going on a call is having flashing lights and sirens ablaze. They didnt, so one would generally assume that they are not acting as police officers but normal citizens.
> 
> A police vehicle/officer has to abide by the same laws as everyone else if they are not on a call and if there is not an emergency. If they are not signalling that there is an emergency, then they are classed as normal citizens and will be subject to the same punishment for law breaking as everyone else is.
> If a police vehicle set a speed camera off when they were not responding to a call then the driver would get a fine and points on his license, just like everyone else who drives.
> ...


 
You might find that emergency vehicles are exempt from certain laws, whether they are on an emergency call or not. One of the exemptions just happens to be bus lanes. Read the first part of this link for more info if you want it.

So the good citizen/weekend lawyer on the bike seems to have got it wrong. Perhaps he should have minded his own business from the outset of this incident and not ended up looking such a prat.


----------



## Thomk (12 May 2013)

Brandane said:


> You might find that emergency vehicles are exempt from certain laws, whether they are on an emergency call or not. One of the exemptions just happens to be bus lanes. Read the first part of this link for more info if you want it.
> 
> So the good citizen/weekend lawyer on the bike seems to have got it wrong. Perhaps he should have minded his own business from the outset of this incident and not ended up looking such a prat.


 
Brilliant!

That's the problem with being so self righteous. You've got to be a) correct and b) whiter than white.


----------



## apb (12 May 2013)

I'm 100% sure I was cycling the other way when this happened. During my commute into work. It would of happened around 8:30 in the morning on the east end of Melville Drive.


----------



## Cubist (12 May 2013)

Brandane said:


> You might find that emergency vehicles are exempt from certain laws, whether they are on an emergency call or not. One of the exemptions just happens to be bus lanes. Read the first part of this link for more info if you want it.
> 
> So the good citizen/weekend lawyer on the bike seems to have got it wrong. Perhaps he should have minded his own business from the outset of this incident and not ended up looking such a prat.


Excellent link. However, the police officers could have handled it a little better by explaining this to the cyclist.

The cyclist on the other hand could have handled it better by stopping and having a proper conversation with the officers instead of remaining out of arm's reach and arguing petulantly. 

I may also point out that the cop appears to be on the back foot a little, and I can understand why; In training we are taught how to deal with angry people, so much so that we have a particular training scenario called the "Violent Deranged Person" which teaches us how to overpower and disarm a person acting at the extremes of violence. The training scenario involves teams of three officers in full padded riot gear, armed with batons and equipped with polycarbonate riot shields. The VDP is dressed head to foot in padded armour, including a NATO helmet, and is armed with a baseball bat and various hammers etc. The scenario is literally "no holds barred" and ends when either the officers or the VDP call checkmate. In order to get him to call checkmate you have to attack him so hard he can feel it through the padding. He will be attempting to hit your helmet and pads with the baseball bat with such force as would break bones. 

Why am I telling you this? It's because the officer has been trained to deal with VDP's and this is in fact a cakewalk in comparison with dealing with an ISF, better known as an "Indignant Squeaky F*ckknuckle."


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

Brandane said:


> You might find that emergency vehicles are exempt from certain laws, whether they are on an emergency call or not. One of the exemptions just happens to be bus lanes. Read the first part of this link for more info if you want it.
> 
> So the good citizen/weekend lawyer on the bike seems to have got it wrong. Perhaps he should have minded his own business from the outset of this incident and not ended up looking such a prat.



Muppet ill informed cyclist and ego hurt police officers. Which is what it all comes down to. 
Bad mix


----------



## Monkreadusuk (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Ok. Maybe overstepped on knowledge of fine handing out but again I stand by the fact they flouted the timings and it promoted other to do it as well. They should set the example. Sorry if this is too idealistic



AFAIK marked police vehicles are exempt from bus lane restrictions.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (12 May 2013)

I have total respect for the police except when it comes to any thing traffic related!
They get on my tits, think the rules of the road don't apply to them.
When they pull some one over then leave their vehicle not pulled in causing an obstruction slowing down traffic even more than the normal rubbernecking.
Like the other day crossing the road opposite my son's school an unmarked car turns right with out indicating.


----------



## dodgy (12 May 2013)

Helmet cam man strikes again. I bet he couldn't wait to get that on Youtube, initial frisson of excitement, then giggling to himself all the way home where his excited shakey hands struggle to plug it into his computer. Wiping the drool from his mouth he finally manages to upload it.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 May 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> Like the other day crossing the road opposite my son's school an unmarked car turns right with out indicating.


 
An unmarked car? Could've been anybody.


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 May 2013)

I cringe when I see stuff like this.

Partly because the cyclist clearly thought it was worthy of posting on Youtube... Why are some people so deeply unaware of how daft they look? I have the impression that this wasn't posted in some sort of humorous mood.

Partly also because a certain breed of fellow cyclist (fellow traveller?) finds something noble, just and heroic in this sort of masturbatory _'vigilante of smugness'_ wrongheadedness and puts the link up in fora like this....

There is something about some people that simply forces them to mug their heads off when they know they are being filmed (by themselves). The turnip in this clip is not unlike the goons who gurn behind OB takes on the News at Ten... apart from the fact that those guys know they look absurd and this chap thinks he's some sort of _Captain Headcam, Hero of the A735 (and one or two minor roads he might find himself on when traffic conditions are suitable)._

WHen I was a motorcycle courier (really, I was, I just never talk about it) one of our chaps was a bit of a racer and seeing a white, faired BMW in his vibrating mirrors, he gave it the beans on his RD350LC. Some miles later he observed the blue lights on this white Bimmer and pulled over. It was 1984. The first words from the police motorcyclist were "Have you always been a c**t?" It became folklore at my courier firm and the rider himself dined out on it...

How I wish regulations still allowed police officers to speak that way...


----------



## Twilkes (12 May 2013)

The BBC did a documentary on modern police life a while ago, made some interesting points:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yibo8iB7VEM#t=00m25s


----------



## gavroche (12 May 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> I think you should have more respect for the police. Without them, the country wouldn't be a beautiful, crime-free utopia. It'd be chaos. They do a difficult job with one hand tied behind their back and they shouldn't have to put up with self-righteous herberts giving them grief over nowt.


 And because they are "the police", they also think they can do what they like on the road, park where they like, signal if they feel like it etc... because they are "the police".


----------



## BSRU (12 May 2013)

Personally no issue with police, ambulances/paramedics or fire engines using bus lanes/gates regardless if they are on a call or not.
The cyclist does us (in general) no favours and certainly makes us cammers look even worse .
Why would anyone tap on the window in that situation unless to cause confrontation or self righteousness?


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

Monkreadusuk said:


> AFAIK marked police vehicles are exempt from bus lane restrictions.


everyone knows this now.!!! Keep up.


----------



## numbnuts (12 May 2013)

I've just seen the video a prat on a bike with camera looking for a fight, sorry but that's the way I see it


----------



## gaz (12 May 2013)

dodgy said:


> Helmet cam man strikes again. I bet he couldn't wait to get that on Youtube, initial frisson of excitement, then giggling to himself all the way home where his excited shakey hands struggle to plug it into his computer. Wiping the drool from his mouth he finally manages to upload it.


I'm surprised it took you so long to comment on this one. Usually you jump on it with your outrageous statements within hours.

If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say it.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

numbnuts said:


> I've just seen the video a prat on a bike with camera *looking for a fight*, sorry but that's the way I see it


He is Scottish. Its in his blood. For


----------



## dodgy (12 May 2013)

gaz said:


> I'm surprised it took you so long to comment on this one. Usually you jump on it with your outrageous statements within hours.
> 
> If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say it.


 
Calm down camera boy.

Edit to add - I've made I think 2 comments on 2 camera related threads. It hardly constitutes some kind of war against helmet cammers. It's just that there's plenty of material right now to ridicule.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

dodgy said:


> Calm down camera boy.
> 
> Edit to add - I've made I think 2 comments on 2 camera related threads. It hardly constitutes some kind of war against helmet cammers. It's just that there's plenty of material right now to ridicule.


It only takes one to set a prescience


----------



## Cubist (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> It only takes one to set a prescience


 


*pre·science*

 [*presh*-_uh_







ns, -ee-_uh_






ns, *pree*-sh_uh_






ns, -shee-_uh_






ns] Show IPA
_*noun*_
knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.
*Origin: *
1325–75; Middle English < Late Latin _praescientia _ foreknowledge. See pre-, science

_*Related forms*_
*pre·scient, *_*adjective*_


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

Cubist said:


> *pre·science*
> 
> [*presh*-_uh_
> 
> ...


Edit:fark precedent I mean.


----------



## Cubist (12 May 2013)

You obviously mean a president:


----------



## dodgy (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> It only takes one to set a prescience


 
Keep providing the material, and I'll keep laughing at it.


----------



## Cubist (12 May 2013)

That's smartphones for you!


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

dodgy said:


> Keep providing the material, and I'll keep laughing at it.


Just keep looking in your pants. A site constant of amusement.


----------



## dodgy (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Just keep looking in your pants. A site constant of amusement.


 
I recommend proof reading your posts, Yoda.

And PS, your comeback was the shoot**est in the history of the Internet.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 May 2013)

dodgy said:


> I recommend proof reading your posts, Yoda.
> 
> And PS, your comeback was the s*****est in the history of the Internet.


It was fine. It got the job done. Don't mock others if you don't wish to be mocked yourself. Auto correct is an annoying necessity so meh.


----------



## dodgy (12 May 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> It was fine. It got the job done. Don't mock others if you don't wish to be mocked yourself. Auto correct is an annoying necessity so meh.


 
I still can't believe you tried a penis size joke. There is no possibility whatsoever that such a joke would bother me in the slightest. Now, if you had seen my penis and then commented, I might be offended, _possibly_.


----------



## dodgy (12 May 2013)

Anyway, back on topic. Helmet cammers posting cringe worthy material in the hope they get support. Funny isn't it?


----------



## Mugshot (12 May 2013)




----------



## Dan B (12 May 2013)

Brandane said:


> You might find that emergency vehicles are exempt from certain laws, whether they are on an emergency call or not. One of the exemptions just happens to be bus lanes. Read the first part of this link for more info if you want it.


In Edinburgh, so yes for this video but not necessarily so across the UK. . In general it depends entirely on the wording of the TRO that created the bus lane in question, and that's up to the local highway authority that wrote it


----------



## Moss (12 May 2013)

Cyclist was well within the law; and was correct in pointing out the error of the police car!

Noddy Police Officers are clearly not conversant with the law? They (Police) have egg on face; and should be repremanded by the police service authorities. Great it's on camera for all to see! Police change their mental direction when they know they're in the wrong; looking (or attempting) to find something else to prove their point; even when they are completely out of order. 

All police officers should be put on bicycle patrol for 2, years before moving on to motorized vehicles.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (12 May 2013)

Actually, I think all people should be on bicycles for at least a year before moving on to motor vehicles. It might give them a sense of perspective.


----------



## RiflemanSmith (13 May 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> An unmarked car? Could've been anybody.


What with four uniformed old bill in it?


----------



## Alan Frame (13 May 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> What with four uniformed old bill in it?


 
Might have nicked it ?


----------



## Brandane (13 May 2013)

Moss said:


> Cyclist was well within the law; and was correct in pointing out the error of the police car!
> 
> Noddy Police Officers are clearly not conversant with the law? They (Police) have egg on face; and should be repremanded by the police service authorities. Great it's on camera for all to see!


 
Except that there was no "error" (other than the way they all went about dealing with the incident).......




> You might find that emergency vehicles are exempt from certain laws, whether they are on an emergency call or not. One of the exemptions just happens to be bus lanes. Read the first part of this link for more info if you want it.
> 
> So the good citizen/weekend lawyer on the bike seems to have got it wrong. Perhaps he should have minded his own business from the outset of this incident and not ended up looking such a prat.


----------



## Hip Priest (13 May 2013)

RiflemanSmith said:


> What with four uniformed old bill in it?


 
Strippergrams.


----------



## Cubist (13 May 2013)

Moss said:


> Cyclist was well within the law; and was correct in pointing out the error of the police car!
> 
> Noddy Police Officers are clearly not conversant with the law? They (Police) have egg on face; and should be repremanded by the police service authorities. Great it's on camera for all to see! Police change their mental direction when they know they're in the wrong; looking (or attempting) to find something else to prove their point; even when they are completely out of order.
> 
> All police officers should be put on bicycle patrol for 2, years before moving on to motorized vehicles.


Try and keep up.


----------



## d87francis (13 May 2013)

Agreed that the cyclist did not handle this that well as it escalated, but I feel that his initial actions of knocking on the window were not out of a desire to create a big fuss and a video for youtube; both parties could have handled their discourse better, and the police officers having received training should have behaved better. 

Granted the cyclists behaviour towards the end overshadows the reasonably calm manner in which he challenged the police for being in the bus lane, and makes him come across as confrontational. This impinges on what is essentially an incredibly important function of society, that we should be able to challenge and hold to account the governing executive (the police). Resulting in most of the replies on the last five pages being critical of challenging the police. Such unquestioning obedience of an institution with a poor track record of misuse of power is worrying, and is perhaps symbolic of the little attention and absence of any convictions for over 350 deaths in custody just since 1998.

I find the notion of an "attitude test" ridiculous. For a start the police officers in the video would have surely failed any such test, and the police should not be there uphold or judge such subjective measures as attitude. The imposition that one is able to judge someone's attitude carries connotations of moral superiority. The police officer's decision to ask for his details was clearly motivated by moral judgements, and perhaps a level of arrogance at having his authority challenged, rather than a belief that the cyclist had broken the law. This is demonstrated by the officer not stating which act they are stopping the cyclist under and for what reasons, and their need to exaggerate the force by which the cyclist tapped on their window.

If we are to continuing functioning as a society that perceives a need for a police force, then we should be able to challenge them on all of their actions and not expect them to act in an aggressively defensive manner!


----------



## Alan Frame (13 May 2013)

victor said:


> Actually, I think all people should be on bicycles for at least a year before moving on to motor vehicles. It might give them a sense of perspective.


 
I agree with you, but it is a non-starter as it would effectively exclude those with disabilities.


----------



## Mugshot (13 May 2013)

Alan Frame said:


> I agree with you, but it is a non-starter as it would effectively exclude those with disabilities.


There are a number of members on here that would vehemently disagree with you.


----------



## Alan Frame (13 May 2013)

Mugshot said:


> There are a number of members on here that would vehemently disagree with you.


 
I am sure that will be the case, as a lot of people with disabilities do cycle. Equally, there are a number of people who would not be able to ride a bike for a variety of reasons, eg inability to balance.
Those same people may be perfectly able to drive. I was in no way suggesting that disabled people in general cannot ride bicycles, just that some cannot and that should not be a bar to them driving a motor vehicle.


----------



## Gixxerman (13 May 2013)

Twilkes said:


> The BBC did a documentary on modern police life a while ago, made some interesting points:


(Off topic alert!)
"People like us". Fabulous series. "The pilots" was a classic.


----------



## Bman (13 May 2013)

d87francis said:


> Agreed that the cyclist did not handle this that well as it escalated, but I feel that his initial actions of knocking on the window were not out of a desire to create a big fuss and a video for youtube; both parties could have handled their discourse better, and the police officers having received training should have behaved better.
> 
> Granted the cyclists behaviour towards the end overshadows the reasonably calm manner in which he challenged the police for being in the bus lane, and makes him come across as confrontational. This impinges on what is essentially an incredibly important function of society, that we should be able to challenge and hold to account the governing executive (the police). Resulting in most of the replies on the last five pages being critical of challenging the police. Such unquestioning obedience of an institution with a poor track record of misuse of power is worrying, and is perhaps symbolic of the little attention and absence of any convictions for over 350 deaths in custody just since 1998.
> 
> ...


 

Couldnt have said it better myself.

This video is about a policeman's reaction to having his authority challenged. Despite the less than perfect cyclist cammer, I can see the point here. It's a shame others can't.


----------



## Brandane (14 May 2013)

Bongman said:


> Couldnt have said it better myself.
> 
> This video is about a policeman's reaction to having his authority challenged. Despite the less than perfect cyclist cammer, I can see the point here. It's a shame others can't.


 
There is a system in place for complaining about the conduct of Police Officers if you feel that they are behaving inappropriately. From being on the receiving end of it several times over my service (mostly as a result of malicious complaints) I can assure you that there are no "cover ups" by those doing the investigating, who are desperate to further their careers.

The time and place to complain about the Police is not in the confrontational manner of the cyclist in the OPs' clip. That is just being a prat, and it is never going to end well. Especially when you don't have your facts correct regarding emergency vehicles in bus lanes.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (14 May 2013)

Not read all the thread, but it's just another tit with a vid camera deliberately provoking incidents to solely acquire youtube footage in order to get their ego pampered.
Odd how sticking a camera on your bonce makes you believe you're 100% correct in all instances.


----------



## mad despot (14 May 2013)

dodgy said:


> Helmet cam man strikes again. I bet he couldn't wait to get that on Youtube, initial frisson of excitement, then giggling to himself all the way home where his excited shakey hands struggle to plug it into his computer. Wiping the drool from his mouth he finally manages to upload it.


 
 Brilliant!


----------



## DiddlyDodds (14 May 2013)

The lads a clown ,, prod a plod and you are going to get come of worst.


----------



## d87francis (14 May 2013)

Brandane said:


> There is a system in place for complaining about the conduct of Police Officers if you feel that they are behaving inappropriately. From being on the receiving end of it several times over my service (mostly as a result of malicious complaints) I can assure you that there are no "cover ups" by those doing the investigating, who are desperate to further their careers.
> 
> The time and place to complain about the Police is not in the confrontational manner of the cyclist in the OPs' clip. That is just being a prat, and it is never going to end well. Especially when you don't have your facts correct regarding emergency vehicles in bus lanes.


I think your being sucked into viewing the event in the context of the cyclist's eventual reaction, like many others. The way in which he challenged them was not in a confrontational manner, despite the police officer who was driving exaggerating the force with which he tapped the window. His eventual temper and non compliance with the police officers was as a direct result to the petty way in which the police were responding.

Such a minor infraction is not worth going through the bureaucracy to file an official complaint. If you genuinely believe that we cannot hold the police accountable in a manner where we directly challenge them on their current actions, then I'm afraid you too have fallen into the police ego trap!

Regardless of the legality of the police car being in the bus lane, they are not bothered to challenge any other motorists in the bus lane, and what's wrong with them setting a precedent by not joining the lane until the end. Yet they will happily jump out the car and do something because a cyclist has shown the audacity to challenge their actions.

I do, however, agree with you about the IPCC. They have now on several occasions raised concerns over the CPS not pursuing cases with strong evidence of misconduct, and juries failure to successfully prosecute officers in the face of relatively strong evidence. It's up to you what you read from this, but it certainly paints a picture of a public that are afraid to challenge the police even in light of "strong evidence".


----------



## BSRU (14 May 2013)

Ffoeg said:


> Odd how sticking a camera on your bonce makes you believe they 100% correct in all instances.


 
No it doesn't, talk about sweeping generalisations


----------



## snorri (14 May 2013)

d87francis said:


> It's up to you what you read from this, but it certainly paints a picture of a public that are afraid to challenge the police even in light of "strong evidence".


This incident gives no insight whatsoever into public attitudes to policing, it paints a picture of a lone cyclist lacking in communication skills.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (14 May 2013)

BSRU said:


> No it doesn't, talk about sweeping generalisations


Sorry - 99.9% just to account for the exception to the rule that might be out there somewhere


----------



## d87francis (14 May 2013)

snorri said:


> This incident gives no insight whatsoever into public attitudes to policing, it paints a picture of a lone cyclist lacking in communication skills.


The quote "It's up to you what you read from this, but it certainly paints a picture of a public that are afraid to challenge the police even in light of "strong evidence"." is in reference to the IPCCs criticism of a lack of successful prosecutions by juries in the face of "strong evidence". It is not referring to the video.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 May 2013)

The cameraman (one might imagine) probably thinks he looks clever in this footage or he'd have done what any sane cammer would do and delete it.

He is the very epitome of 'excitable'. I'm no psychologist, but he appears to be looking for some recordable interaction and he finds it.

His language almost paints his near-climax excitement:_ "You created a traffic offence!" _he chirps delightedly more than once.

My wife and I giggle at people who use their _'reading my own poetry'_ voice on R4. This guy is using his _'recording my own brilliance'_ voice and vocabulary - except the vocabulary, the actions and the voice fall rather short of brilliance.

He sounds as though he received an education. He also sounds as if it availed him little.

As to the the suggestion that those mocking the bike boy somehow promote a society in which the Police can get away with anything... Well, that seems like a bit of a jump. The view of some posters might just be based on thinking that superannuated teenage snot-goblins with recording equipment and a lust for confronting authority ought sometimes to be too embarrassed by the resulting footage to post it online. That this chap was not says even more about him than his quite disturbing performance on screen.

It is entertaining, but not in a good way for the bike boy.

_(Edit: Just looked at the Youtube comments - BikeBoy says he was riled partly because he was on a *Strava PB* at the time. This layer cake of deeply piled crapulosity needs no adorment... But if it did, there's the cherry it was looking for.) _


----------



## BSRU (14 May 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> _(Edit: Just looked at the Youtube comments - BikeBoy says he was riled partly because he was on a *Strava PB* at the time. This layer cake of deeply piled crapulosity needs no adorment... But if it did, there's the cherry it was looking for.) _


 
That is Strava for you, a hotbed of bicycle hooligans


----------



## boydj (14 May 2013)

d87francis said:


> I think your being sucked into viewing the event in the context of the cyclist's eventual reaction, like many others. The way in which he challenged them was not in a confrontational manner, despite the police officer who was driving exaggerating the force with which he tapped the window. His eventual temper and non compliance with the police officers was as a direct result to the petty way in which the police were responding.
> 
> Such a minor infraction is not worth going through the bureaucracy to file an official complaint. If you genuinely believe that we cannot hold the police accountable in a manner where we directly challenge them on their current actions, then I'm afraid you too have fallen into the police ego trap!
> 
> ...


It's not his place to tell the police how to do their job or what their priorities should be. They have a Chief Constable who is very focussed on statistics and performance figures and I doubt if bus lanes figure in there anywhere. Woe betide a PC spending any time on anything that's not going to help the monthly stats - and that probably includes wasting time on arrogant little cycle cammers.


----------



## Brandane (14 May 2013)

d87francis said:


> I do, however, agree with you about the IPCC. They have now on several occasions raised concerns over the CPS not pursuing cases with strong evidence of misconduct, and juries failure to successfully prosecute officers in the face of relatively strong evidence. It's up to you what you read from this, but it certainly paints a picture of a public that are afraid to challenge the police even in light of "strong evidence".


 
The incident posted by the OP happened in Edinburgh. This is (was) part of the Lothian and Borders Police force area (now Police Scotland). We do not have IPCC or CPS. Instead we have an internal Professional Standards department who deal with complaints against the Police. If there is sufficient evidence, they will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal, who will decide on whether to prosecute or not. The function of the Police up here is merely to gather evidence and report cases to the PF who will decide on any further action.


----------



## gaz (14 May 2013)

Brandane said:


> The incident posted by the OP happened in Edinburgh. This is (was) part of the Lothian and Borders Police force area (now Police Scotland). We do not have IPCC or CPS. Instead we have an internal Professional Standards department who deal with complaints against the Police. If there is sufficient evidence, they will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal, who will decide on whether to prosecute or not. The function of the Police up here is merely to gather evidence and report cases to the PF who will decide on any further action.


It's also worth noting that it's the councils that deal with the wrong road users in bus lanes and not the police. So the original complaint by the cyclist was also silly.


----------



## d87francis (15 May 2013)

@gaz - I don't know if this is the same in Scotland, but in England and Wales whilst the task mostly falls upon the council, and it is likely not a policing priority, to drive in a bus lane whilst it's operational is a road traffic offence. Granted there may be an exclusion for emergency vehicles, but that does not stop the police car from setting a precedent/ if there is no immediate need for the car to be there why use special privileges, why not behave as you expect others to act?

I'm in full agreement that the cyclist is silly, but what baffles me more is the unquestioning obedience towards the police displayed in this thread. When in the video it's quite clear that their actions towards him are motivated more by him challenging them, than any offences he may have committed.

I'd like to know if those who don't believe that he should be able to question the police's actions directly, can envisage any form of action by the police which should be directly challenged? Essentially at which point do you intervene, or should you always leave it for an organisation to question afterwards?


----------



## BSRU (15 May 2013)

d87francis said:


> what baffles me more is the unquestioning obedience towards the police displayed in this thread.


 
Don't see that, what most see is a bit of a knob, upset because he failed to beat a Strava PB, slap a window on a police car then cycle off under the false notion that the police car was not allowed to be in the bus lane.
The police do not handle it very well but the cyclist keeps making himself look like a self righteous knob and then decides to upload it to YouTube so everyone can see his knobbishness.


----------



## Brandane (15 May 2013)

d87francis said:


> @gaz - I don't know if this is the same in Scotland, but in England and Wales whilst the task mostly falls upon the council, and it is likely not a policing priority, to drive in a bus lane whilst it's operational is a road traffic offence. Granted there may be an exclusion for emergency vehicles, but that does not stop the police car from setting a precedent/ if there is no immediate need for the car to be there why use special privileges, why not behave as you expect others to act?


 AFAIK, it is the responsibility of the Police in Scotland to enforce bus lane infringements, or in the case of cameras detecting offences, the council. Having said that, I worked in the Inverclyde district where there is not a bus lane to be seen. There is always the "fail to obey a traffic sign" to fall back on; that covers pretty much everything. Re your point about there being no immediate need to be in the bus lane, how do we know this from the clip? Not every call is as clear cut as being either a blues and twos emergency, or a "sit in traffic and wait" response. There are loads of incidents where you want to get there quickly, but don't merit an emergency response.



d87francis said:


> I'm in full agreement that the cyclist is silly, but what baffles me more is the unquestioning obedience towards the police displayed in this thread. When in the video it's quite clear that their actions towards him are motivated more by him challenging them, than any offences he may have committed.
> 
> I'd like to know if those who don't believe that he should be able to question the police's actions directly, can envisage any form of action by the police which should be directly challenged? Essentially at which point do you intervene, or should you always leave it for an organisation to question afterwards?


 
I would suggest it is always a bad idea to intervene at the scene. You won't know the background to a specific incident and by sticking your oar in, you are leaving yourself open to being arrested for obstructing the Police in the execution of their duties (if it was to escalate that far). The proper way is to complain after the event, at a Police office.
In this particular case, when I was a serving Officer I most certainly would have challenged the cyclist. I would have gone about it a different way, i.e. I would have explained the fact that Police vehicles are allowed in bus lanes, and that at that particular time I was heading to deal with another incident and therefore didn't have time to book the other cars using the bus lane.
I would have REQUIRED him to provide me with his name and address on the grounds that he was a potential witness to an offence (was he not complaining about vehicles in a bus lane at some point?). Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 used to provide Police with that power (and maybe still does). Having required his name and address there is no way I would then let him cycle away! I would have arrested him at that point. As a Police Officer you MUST NOT require someone to do something and then not follow it through, that is rule #1. If you do, then you just look silly like the guys on this clip.


----------

