having no lights and going through a red light
Surely cyclists don't do that, do they?
|
|
I don't think the cops wanted to take it that far, it was just that the blokes attitude gave them no choice. As soon as he gave them a bit of scope they backed off.
FTF
Edited by fredthefifth on 08/10/2010 at 09:58
|
|
the cyclist was a proper idiot
BUT there is a clear lack of justice
there should be a simple 30 quid fine for lack of respect to police, as an alternate to stuff like this
lack of bike lights and bikes running red lights is not policed in this country, it happens millions of times a day, for one guy to get stopped for it is very bad luck and to get such a heavy fine is disproprtionate
as for fail to stop although he should have stopped straight away i would have been in tears of laughter to get stopped for this when ive regularly seen zero police reaction to serious disorder, burgalry, and violence, as the bloke was saying on a weekend night if they drove a few miles down the road the cops would have found running street fights - very strange priorities
having said all that i would welcome a nationwide clampdown on cyclists who think they are above the law, but it would need some publicity and so on, and not just be one bloke pulled out at random from millions and in front of cameras at that
|
|
All the cyclist had to do was the'sorry officer,three bags full officer' routine and that was the end of the matter,but no he had to go into' idiot overdrive'.It was his attitude rather than the actual offence that got him done.
|
|
Cannot but agree with Likerocks, etc. The cyclist talked himself right into all he got, He was very arrogant and refused to comply with a direct instruction from the traffic officer, what did he expect? As above, all he had to say was "oops, sorry officer" and it would have been a very different outcome.
Perhaps the fines were a bit excessive, but that's hardly the Traffice Officer's fault.
I met a cyclist the other night, dressed in dark clothing, no lights and coming toward me on the wrong side of the road (road wasn't well lit either). Complete disregard for his safety never mind having a responsibility of care to others.
I do cycle everyday and meet with a variety of types, in cars, on cycles and on foot. If the police only choose to deal with motorised transport offences there would soon be an outcry.
|
|
If you stop someone whilst doing a job that the public purse pays you for, then there's an expectation that you'll do that job properly.
If the person stopped does as they are asked/told and is contrite then there's a reasonable chance that your intervention has done some good and that they might consider the error of their ways and not do it again. If minor, they can be given a simple warning and you are off to the more important matters.
If however the person stopped gives you as load of mouth and is not prepared to accept that what they've done is wrong, then the only sensible option is to get your pen out and allow an FPN fine or court to deal with it, because otherwise what good have you achieved? I'd suggest abolutely nothing.
Many people who ignore the minor stuff also ignore the medium and serious stuff, it' s in their n?a?t?u?r?e?.
If folk can't work?? this out??? then they are? likely to have some strife in their lives ??.???
|
|
Can't see that they had any alternative. Self-inflicted pain. And I don't think it's awaste of time either. Can't abide red-light jumpers whether two-wheeled or 4.
|
|
I agree to a certain extent but its the imbalance of justice that gets my goat!
I had suffered numerous breakins to my business in sussex and i even had an occasion where the alarm was triggered but i had to go myself as they had no police cover in the area (this was 2.15am)
When i arrived sure enough a lorry (stolen one) was backed up through the door! had to wait till after 10am the next morning and they just gave me an incident number & suggested I claimed on the insurance!!!!!!
No interest in the offenders ( long gone ) so just a tick box excercise, & thats how I felt for the cyclist, 4 easy boxes to tick for offences, but a real criminal gets off lightly.
|
|
Seems inexcusable not to follow up, even if they are short-handed at the time of the break-in. You have to wonder sometimes about police priorities. But then we see little of what's in their in-tray as it were, and my BiL who's in one of the forces keeps his counsel.
|
I agree to a certain extent but its the imbalance of justice that gets my goat!
No interest in the offenders ( long gone ) so just a tick box excercise, & thats how I felt for the cyclist, 4 easy boxes to tick for offences, but a real criminal gets off lightly.
Idoc, I can see why people think like that..but...believe it or not, that's how most Old Bill think as well. It really grates when the oiks get away with things. Trouble is, there's not enough police to go around.
I have sat in charge of police control rooms in the past, watching the emergency calls piling up, then eventually taking the calls when people start to complain. All you end up saying is' "I can't send what I haven't got". It's a simple as that.
I'd agree that if there was an army of cops roaming around looking for minor motoring offences and just concentrating on that, then it would be extremely galling in the circs you've described...but that isn't so. In fact the minor stuff is being totally ignored and IMO that has its' own problems, in many places in Blighty there's a free for all with motoring offences and it's only going to get worse.
There used to be a formula for how many traffic officers a force used to have...that's now out the window. I think we're mad to ignore that side of things.
If an officer on patrol sees something then they will be tempted to step in and deal with it, even if it's a verbal warning. If however that potential verbal warning turns into a saga and a court case because the recipient becomes a cock...then that's the way it has to be, what's the alternative, ignore it in the first place or 'roll over' and let them abuse the uniform that the public is paying for to uphold the law?
Edited by Westpig on 08/10/2010 at 18:40
|
|
Sounds like ID has a blunt axe in his shed that requires sharpening ;-)
The footage clearly showed a patrolling car. Not parked up waiting for people with no lights. He happened to pass by and they decided to have a word. Rightly so. They both had radios that could have summoned them onto something more serious, so no argument there.
The car with no lights had lights but only needed turning on. He had no physical illumination on his bike. So he couldn't just turn them on at will like the car driver.
His attitude was all wrong. Why didn't they breathalyse him? He would have got away with a slap on the wrist if he approached it right. He didn't and paid the cost. The cops gave him enough chances and in my view did the right thing. He didn't tie them up at the station as he wasn't arrested, and left to go on his way. So the cops were free to carry on patrolling.
What if this idiot had of been knocked over. Ending up disabled for life. All for the sake of cops turning a blind eye, or more importantly him too arrogant to fix lights at night.
And as for being a waste of taxpayers money, £900 into the coffers was a result.
Edited by Ben 10 on 08/10/2010 at 19:09
|
|
>>Why didn't they breathalyse him?
I don't think they can, although I may be corrected.
I understand there is an offence of 'being drunk in charge of a bicycle' for which the maximum penalty is a £50 fine.
|
|
Cant find any references to £50 fines, but one or two might have fallen foul of the Cycling Dangerously legislation (up to £2500 court fine)
A good link: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php
As for the muppet on the telly, he acted like an idiot, what did he expect? I'm glad he got fined tbh and the Police took it further! And I've been cycling for a long while myself.
|
|
All the cyclist had to do was the'sorry officer,three bags full officer' routine and that was the end of the matter,but no he had to go into' idiot overdrive'.It was his attitude rather than the actual offence that got him done.
so now its an offence to have an attitude is it?
|
|
The difference between the car driver and the cyclist was that the car driver complied without argument. If he had of displayed the same attitude as the cyclist, I'm sure he would have been pulled over and handled in the same way.
|
|
|
All the cyclist had to do was the'sorry officer,three bags full officer' routine and that was the end of the matter,but no he had to go into' idiot overdrive'.It was his attitude rather than the actual offence that got him done.
so now its an offence to have an attitude is it?
I thought it always was an offence to have an attitude!!
One thing Mr Plod doesn't like is having someone argue with them. I can understand why too, because they do have to maintain a degree of authority by verbal means or else we are going to end up with an escalation of the use of force.
|
|
so if pc plod is in the wrong you aint supposed to stand your ground then?
|
so if pc plod is in the wrong you aint supposed to stand your ground then?
That's another kettle of fish and quite different to the scenario according to the TV. If you stand your ground it's best not to be on quicksand......
|
|
>>so if pc plod is in the wrong you aint supposed to stand your ground then?
That's right. They've got the shovel, let them dig their own hole. ;>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
"have to abide by the same rules as everyone else." No they don't, they don't have to have tax, insurance, number plates or MOTs and that's just a start!
|
|
I didn't see the program on the television.But reading peoples comment if you are in the wrong be it cyclist or car driver and you are stopped by the police,admit to it and be polite.Does't take Einstein to work that out.
|
|
obviously if your in the wrong you keep your gob shut and take the wrap, but if you know your right then theres no reason not to argue the point or are most of you sheeple ?
|
|
It's amazing how many people think they know their rights, when in fact they don't e.g. "you can't come in without a warrant"...Some people believe too much what they see on the t.v.
In the context of this thread, which part of the cyclists actions made him right?
|
|
Well it is perfectly understandable for a member of the public to be staggered and amazed to be pulled over for these offences, as these offences just are not policed in the UK, I’ve seen much worse from cyclists (thousands of times) under the noses of bored cops who never even lift an eyelid
The only cyclist I’ve ever seen pulled over was riding with no hands on the handlebars in the middle of the road in front of a traffic car, running red lights/no lights etc I’ve never seen cops stop a cyclist
Taken alongside serious stuff like disorder/burglary/gangs/violence where there is little response from the cops
And the fact it was a weekend night when it’s likely the member of the public would know how few cops would be on duty, and how out of control the environment around the central pubs would be nearby, then it all adds up to any reasonable person being staggered to get stopped
So you’re staggered, I would probably have uncontrollably laughed – the cops would probably have taken this as bad attitude – its wouldn’t have been (I wouldn’t cycle without lights at night anyways), this guy started taking the mikey wasn’t particularly rude just expressed amazement in a general outraged mikey taking fashion
Does one guy of out millions that do this kind of thing every night deserve a grand fine basically because he took the mickey out of the coppers? While it did look like they were playing it by the book simply cos the camera was there (I would be very disgruntled to have a camera stuck in my face as is done in most of these shows), so all in all understandable
It all comes down to “without fear or favour”, some proportionality, and priorities displayed by cops, fair enough the guy was in the wrong but in an environment where there are folk going out night after night with knifes in their pockets – causing fights – nicking stuff and so on – somehow I don’t think anyone would think much of the priorities shown by the cops here
On the other hand as I said before I would be all for a crack down on poor cycle riding, but picking one guy at random does look unusual and likely to cause offence
As for the magistrates handing down that fine, what plonkers don’t they get out?
So the simple answer to your question is that the cyclist was right to be amazed to be stopped for this, and some gentle mickey taking in those ciurcumstances was understandable – he probably went a bit too far in that regard but hardly worth a grand fine
|
|
Due to the severity of the sentence, I would have thought that the cyclist has a good reason to appeal against the sentence.
Secondly, if I was stopped by the police, I personally would object to the whole proceedings being filmed in order to make a cheap television programme. I would have thought that in such cases, the person stopped is having their human rights disregarded and as such, he may have a very good case to take this further. What if a member of the public passing by started blatently filming such an incident on their mobile phone, I guess they would soon be told to stop by the police.
I know police cars have on board cameras but there is a huge difference between being filmed by an in car camera and being filmed by a television film crew.
|
|
What if the guy on the bike hadn't been stopped and the guy in the car with no lights met further down the road ;-)
|
Secondly, if I was stopped by the police, I personally would object to the whole proceedings being filmed in order to make a cheap television programme. I would have thought that in such cases, the person stopped is having their human rights disregarded and as such, he may have a very good case to take this further. What if a member of the public passing by started blatently filming such an incident on their mobile phone, I guess they would soon be told to stop by the police.
I know police cars have on board cameras but there is a huge difference between being filmed by an in car camera and being filmed by a television film crew.
Its perfectly legal for anyone to whip out their phone in public and start filming the events. The police cannot stop them from doing so, although some have tried. I think if you do at an airport they can "get all heavy" with anti-terror laws, but generally in a public place is fine.
The same is true for TV film crews, although they do check with the "punters" and sometimes you will see someone with their face blurred, presumably because they stated they did not agree with being filmed and the film crew/production are being polite.
|
|
Well it is perfectly understandable for a member of the public to be staggered and amazed to be pulled over for these offences, as these offences just are not policed in the UK, I’ve seen much worse from cyclists (thousands of times) under the noses of bored cops who never even lift an eyelid
What makes you think they're bored? How about realistic and conscious of the fact they have a juggling act to perform and that if they stopped everyone for anything, they wouldn't get a mile from the nick (and all the more serious stuff would be totally ignored).
this guy started taking the mikey wasn’t particularly rude just expressed amazement in a general outraged mikey taking fashion
Do you honestly think it's acceptable or sensible to take the mickey out of a cop who's just stopped you for an offence?...or perhaps it might have been better to be polite and contrite and accepting of the fact you've done wrong, in which case you might just get a warning .
Does one guy of out millions that do this kind of thing every night deserve a grand fine basically because he took the mickey out of the coppers?
He got the fine because he 'wouldn't have it' that he'd done wrong. That's what courts do. That's what they are there for. How else does society ensure people do as they are told?
somehow I don’t think anyone would think much of the priorities shown by the cops here
They stumbled across something and dealt with it thoroughly because the person they stopped was an a*** and wouldn't accept his wrongdoing. That has nothing to do with any policing priority.
On the other hand as I said before I would be all for a crack down on poor cycle riding, but picking one guy at random does look unusual and likely to cause offence
How could you have a crack down without starting with someone first ? There's never going to be a crackdown i.e. that it be a priority, whilst more serious stuff runs out of control, but the odd passing cop might step in and deal, depending on what they're doing at the time. That's the way it goes.
|
|
I agree he was a plonker
But merits no more than a 100 quid fine max in my book to show any kind of balance with other sentences handed out for much more serious stuff
As for the coppers at the scene they could easily have conceded to him that it was very unusual to stop someone for that and defused it
And I know plenty cops so am perfectly well aware that genuinely bored cops leave this stuff alone
|
|
The police wanted to issue a fixed penalty - but the cyclist wouldn't have it. The cyclist also said he wanted the offences to be dealt with by summons. So the police gave him what he asked for.
As regards the level of the fine, it was the magistrates who decided to use this case as an example - not the police.
The cyclist got all that was due to him - no sympathy.
|
|
In the narrative at the end of the programme, his fine was mentioned and it also mentioned that magistrates in Brighton were cracking down on "Lycra Louts" on bikes.
A bit of a broad statement, I associate the term Lycra Lout with a young adult on a bicycle going at high speed. It's a bit like the police stopping a middle aged driver and the narrative referring to a crackdown on "Boy racers."
|
making an example of someone in a courtroom is wrong?
very unprofeesional in my book
|
|
|
|
|
