Saturday 15 April 2017

The Very Definition Of 'A Dilemma'....


But on balance, I'll go with the cop:
“Excuse me,” an affronted Mr Lucas tells the policeman as he drives by. As Mr Lucas overtakes the car again, he is asked to pullover, which the cyclist eventually does.
The officer then asks him: “Do you want to explain first of all why you’re cycling in the middle of the road, making it difficult for a vehicle to pass you?
“And then also when I did safely, you shouted, what was it you shouted to me?”
He didn't take the hint.
“I thought you were too close to me, sir,” says Mr Lucas. When asked to give more space to traffic, Mr Lucas refuses.
“No sir,” he says, “I’m entitled to use this whole road and you’re entitled to do 20mph on this 20mph road too.”
“Which I was doing,” says the officer. “Now you are getting to a fine line of obstructing vehicles.
“You are getting very close to the way you are cycling to obstructing vehicles from passing you.
 He really, really doesn't want to take the hint...
Asked to “take on board” that he is obstructing vehicles, Mr Lucas refuses again. He hits back “No sir, you take on board you passed me too closely, sir.”
As the policeman continues to speak, Mr Lucas interrupts him, saying: “Are you detaining me sir? Because I’m going to work, thank you.”
He then cycles off, saying: “You need to get on board with how the Highway Code is, sir. You’re a police officer.”
There's only one answer to this sort of insolence: "Taser, Taser, Taser!"

19 comments:

Longrider said...

Rule 163 of the Highway Code covers this one. If the copper couldn't pass a car at the same location, then he shouldn't have passed the bike.

Longrider said...

Okay, I've had a chance to study the footage now. The cyclist was making reasonable progress in a narrow street. I wouldn't have dreamed of making an overtake at that juncture. The police car was far too close and the cyclist was not obstructing anyone. Sorry, but in this instance, the cyclist was in the right - he even stopped at a red traffic light...

Ed P said...

I watched the video and looked at the Highway Code and conclude the police car passed too close to the bicycle, which was entitled to use the whole lane and was keeping up to the 20mph limit, so passing him involved the police car exceeding 20mph. The cyclist was polite and made valid points to the officer, who appeared to be struggling to express clearly his objections to the cyclist's behaviour.
As a car driver and cyclist, I can see both sides, but too many cars do pass too close to cyclists, like this police car. When I was taught to drive a car, it was said that you should leave enough space for them to wobble from the slipstream, or even fall sideways, i.e., approx 2 metres.

The Blocked Dwarf said...

Who'd want to be a copper these days? You'd have to be a bloody masochist. The Cyclista may have been right according to the Highway Code but the HC doesn't trump The Law and , unless things have changed since I last looked, you can be 'doing nothing wrong' and still be 'causing an obstruction' (like those old biddies round here who drive a 15 mph on a 60mph). As far as I know the working definition of 'causing an obstruction' before the courts is 'if the Officer says you are'.

And even if the Officer was totally in the wrong and having the day from hell, the rule is , was and always will be:'You never win an argument with a copper'. You say 'yes sir, sorry sir,' and mentally call him a jumped fascist piglet and then go home and kick the wife or dog. Worst case you complain to his seniors. You do NOT post your ill mannered truculence online to get props from your Social Meeja chums. And I say that as a former villain.

MTG said...

Many thanks for the article, JuliaM. The video, the impartial observations and your call to Taser specific road users, was indeed 'polarizing'. I am moved to raise one (trivial) point concerning the obligation of cyclists to adopt the 'center' of a narrow road when such 'traveling' necessitates such a position for safety reasons.

I write without prejudice to the Tasering 'offense' arising from my 'defense' of cyclists on this blog. Perhaps you will also tolerate my suggestion that 'familiarizing' yourself with the Highway Code before next venturing out for a few groceries in a 531-chewing, 'armor' clad 4x4 Hummer, is something you owe yourself and other road users.

The Blocked Dwarf said...

I should add that I have, on more than one occasion, had a Police man apologise to me in private days after an 'incident', after checking the law, admitting he was totally in the wrong and I in the right AND to thank me for not disagreeing with him in public to the delight of the watching Yuffs etc.

Of course there are times when one may have to disagree with a police man but, dear God, let it be about something 'life and death' important and not just your bruised ego.

Longrider said...

@the Blocked Dwarf - he wasn't causing an obstruction. He was making reasonable progress. The copper was clearly in the wrong. Also, the Highway Code contains both advice and legal requirements. The cyclist was complying with the HC - so I'd have argued my case in this instance too. Being a police officer does not make one right. That said, I wouldn't have posted it online, I'd have made a formal complaint.

The Blocked Dwarf said...

"so I'd have argued my case in this instance too"-LR

Why bother? I mean really? Because a copper felt the need to get on his high horse and dared to question your cycling abilities? Yes when the policey men kick down your door without a warrant because you have smoked a cigarette inside the house with a CHILD present then OK, stand your ground. But was the cyclista's ego so fragile he couldn't have just been the "bigger man", a soft reply turning away wrath (and I'm sure the copper could have found something to nick him for had he really wanted), not for his sake or the sake of that particular copper but for the sake of every copper, for the sake of us civilians all, everywhere? If you can't respect the man then the uniform at least, the uniform you hope will be there when you really need it.

Like I said above, the copper being wrong or having a god awful 'tude (and some of them really do make me want to slap them- it'd almost be worth the prison time) doesn't excuse my 'weakening' the respect for the uniform in public. The Police manage that well enough without any help from us.

Anonymous said...

@ The Blocked Dwarf

May I respectfully suggest a visit to Specsavers for a prescription which better assists your second viewing of this footage, Sir.

wiggiatlarge said...

I'll put my pennorth in for what it's worth on this, having watched the vid from an ex cyclist, motor cyclist car driver view, I can see no wrong in what the cyclist did there, this was a pull by the plod for the sake of it.
Now of course he (plod) may well have been harboring a chance to pull a cyclist having been stuck behind one of those that deliberately, there can be no other reason, ride at least six foot from the kerb "because they can" and wished to exercise his wrath or pent up feelings.
Whilst on the subject we seem to have a new class of rider who rides in the middle of the road at a slow speed, the learner scooter rider, is this a special trait that is taught at these rider training schools for scooters only as no one else seems to do it.

Anonymous said...

My books on cyclecraft advise riding in the centre of the carraigeway when the traffic is moving slowly enough for you to keep pace. If the traffic speeds up you then move to the side but always ride a metre or so from the kerb because riding in the gutter invites reckless overtaking and leaves you with no escape route.

Stonyground

The Blocked Dwarf said...

@ANON It'd be my third viewing actually and no there is little doubt in my mind that the copper was in the wrong. What's your point? Just because a policeman is being a bit of a dick that it's ok to be one back? Ok I suppose if you need the glow of insufferable self righteousness, and the admiration of Spewtube,to keep you warm at night. If you're going to 'stick it to the man' then make it about more than wounded pride and saddle width.

I hope the next time the cyclista rides without lights because he hasn't noticed his rear i-Cycle Light has blown that the coppers take it all the way to points on his driving licence just for his being a prize cock.

The Blocked Dwarf said...

@ wigg

"Now of course he (plod) may well have been harboring a chance to pull a cyclist"

That was my thought to. Doesn't excuse the cyclist though. Most of us got over the 'he said, so I said' at Primary School...until Facebook came along anyways.

My personal pet hates are drivers who sit up the arse of learner scooter and learner car drivers...and cyclists who think the Public Highway is suitable for Time Trailing.

Longrider said...

If you can't respect the man then the uniform at least, the uniform you hope will be there when you really need it.

Respect is earned. If the man in the uniform doesn't deserve it, then he doesn't get it. So, yes, I would have argued my case.

Longrider said...

Whilst on the subject we seem to have a new class of rider who rides in the middle of the road at a slow speed, the learner scooter rider, is this a special trait that is taught at these rider training schools for scooters only as no one else seems to do it.

The learner scooter rider is taught to dominate their road space for a very good reason - if they don't, some idiot will overtake them in the face of oncoming traffic, thereby placing them in danger. I recommend a little patience. And, yes, I will continue to teach my students to dominate their road-space for they have every right to be there.

JuliaM said...

"Sorry, but in this instance, the cyclist was in the right - he even stopped at a red traffic light..."

And I thought they were all colourblind!

"When I was taught to drive a car, it was said that you should leave enough space for them to wobble from the slipstream, or even fall sideways, i.e., approx 2 metres."

I expect, like me, there were fewer of them then. And they weren't of the obnoxious modern type.

"You do NOT post your ill mannered truculence online to get props from your Social Meeja chums."

It's the modern way.

"...before next venturing out for a few groceries in a 531-chewing, 'armor' clad 4x4 Hummer..."

Ooh, my dream car! :)

"....because riding in the gutter invites reckless overtaking and leaves you with no escape route."

On making my way to an early morning boot sale yesterday, Easter Sunday, quiet, little traffic, I passed a section where a green cycle lane had been laid out on the pavement. Not one of the lycra-clad arseholes I saw were using it. They were all in the road.

JuliaM said...

"Most of us got over the 'he said, so I said' at Primary School...until Facebook came along anyways. "

Spot on!

Anonymous said...

two types of road user who know absolutely that they are above the law.......

Anonymous said...

'...two types of road user who know absolutely that they are above the law......'

Erm, let me guess, Penise. Could it be Mr Plod and Masonic Brethren?