ken_ichikawa Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=uEpTud4HmhE Waaambulance time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Monk Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I think I'm going to get one of those headcams and use it any time I have to talk to the Police or VOSA, it certainly un-nerved him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I have to say the cyclist acted like a coc k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unexpected Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I know its weird but didn't I read somewhere that in London its actually safer to run red lights when you believe its safe to do so. Something about less male cyclists being in fatal accidents in London than female cyclists (it is mostly the males who run the red lights). It seems that running the red lights keeps you away from the traffic traveling in the same direction as you. I think this was an hpc topic years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 The cyclist is a c0ck. he obviously ran a red light. What sort of a tool wears a cycle cam? The sort that runs red lights then wants to try and pick a fight with the police. Nope increasingly people are putting cameras on their vehicles, as people are attempting to worm out of liability when they cause accidents. Almost all of the bikers I know have cameras and it has caused the opposing insurer to cave into accepting liability almost immediately. Compare and constrast with my sister who's insurance claim took 3 years (she went into the side of a woman who came out of a junction). Or the bloke who went into the BACK of one of my mates who then claimed he was reversed into. Also let me put it this way, without a camera it becomes a he said she said situation, and the police officer is ALWAYS considered to be telling the truth in a court of law. The government love their cameras so we should use reciperical surveillance back against them. They are not perfect, but they have enough on their plate without having to deal with A1 prats like this or indeed people who post such puerile anti-police garbage. Come on mate, grow up. So Injin is right then? That its OK for the police to use violence and threats of violence to steal your stuff? The cop in question here made up a law in an attempt to intimidate the member of public to steal his stuff as a revenue collector of the crown. At the end he also attempts to steal the mans camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 He ran a red light. He should be punished. It's bloody dangerous. Are you suggesting that the policeman made up the fact that he went through a red light? At no point in the video does the cyclist say he didn't. He asked for clarification and stated his intentions. The cop then made up a law on the spot in an attempt to intimidate the person... which is arguably worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 Right, so by your logic, I could do that in my car and then start spouting that shit and the policeman woud be out of order to proceed to issuing a ticket? Nope, because motor vehicles have specific statutes applied to them which mean that you have to display an identity on the back of it. Thus the police man doesn't need your help or you to give them your name because it can be acertained from the number plate. You can't drive without a number plate, well you can but its not legal. While you can ride around on a bicycle without any identification at all no number plate, no licence etc. The cop made this mistake himself. He asked for documents even a passport (internal passports comming soon?) to acertain the identity of the person doing the filmimg. But then realised his mistake. Then did exactly as Injin says, he made something up in an attempt to steal money from this person. He then used violence to lunge in an attempt to steal the camera off the cyclist.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 And, who gives a f**k what Injin says? Because boiled down although Injin offers few scant and workable solutions, he does have an interesting alternative view of the world. Which a lot of evidence of his theories is proven correct, notably the force non consent do what I say or I'll break your legs type societies we live in exist. As said don't pay your council tax for a bit see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Monk Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 He then used violence to lunge in an attempt to steal the camera off the cyclist.... Yes, that's the point, irritating though the cyclist may have been, everything was legal until the policeman made physical contact with the cyclist. That was an assault in temper. If the Police are allowed to film us, then we are allowed to film them, for the protection of both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Yes, that's the point, irritating though the cyclist may have been, everything was legal until the policeman made physical contact with the cyclist. That was an assault in temper. If the Police are allowed to film us, then we are allowed to film them, for the protection of both parties. Maybe one day Harry the tw@t of a cyclist will run another red light and end up under one of those big heavy vehicles that you used to drive. Or even worse cause a vehicle to swerve and take out a few pedestrians or other road users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 He ran a red light. He should be punished. It's bloody dangerous. Are you suggesting that the policeman made up the fact that he went through a red light? No one was injured. Facts > your anxieties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 He ran a red light. He should be punished. It's bloody dangerous. Are you suggesting that the policeman made up the fact that he went through a red light? How do you know he ran a red light? It's entirely possible the cop was mistaken. It's very easy to go onto a junction on green riding a bike, get stuck behind someone turning off and end up leaving the junction on red. To someone only watching the exit side it looks like you jumped the light. It's happened to me plenty of times and I'm one of the most cautious cyclists out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunK BeaR Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The cyclist is acting like an ar$ehole. I could understand it if he started acting defensive towards the cop knew after he knew he was going to get a ticket but the cyclist was being deliberately ackward from the minute they started their conversation. Chances are that the cop would just have given him the road safety lecture and sent him on his way but instead he just had to wind him up. IMO this whole thing has been staged by the cyclist. I think he has been deliberately cycling around with a helmet cam running red lights so he could get pulled over and make this little video for youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Can anyone here, perhaps in the guise of PC WiseAfterTheEvent or PC Hindsight, answer the questions that the cyclist put (in my opinion) politely to PC Stout and which PC Stout failed to answer or incorrectedly answered ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird 900 Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The cyclist was stopped on the Edgware Road in Colindale. I know the area well. The two previous traffic lights would have been Colindeep Lane and Colindale Avenue. Both have filter lights and were dangerous junctions before the lights were installed. If the cyclist went through either of these red lights he is an idiot of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hirop Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Great stuff imo. At the end of the day, staged or not, evasive or not, all the guy did was ask questions without being rude. The copper couldn't handle that, and ended up being aggressive and committing a minor assault by the look of things. The officer is paid to know his job, not to be incompete and hot headed. Not knowing his job and then hiding behind his uniform as he pulled that little-big-man routine was shameful and totally negates anything the cyclist 'deserves' because he 'may' have run a red light or 'what if' some horrendous accident had occurs if he does it again....The issue here is the conduct of the copper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Can anyone here, perhaps in the guise of PC WiseAfterTheEvent or PC Hindsight, answer the questions that the cyclist put (in my opinion) politely to PC Stout and which PC Stout failed to answer or incorrectedly answered ? The law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 aka PACE. Yes you can be arrested for failing to disclose to a Police officer your identity, the purpose of the arrest is for investigations to be completed to establish your identity. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 a cyclist cannot run a red light. All the other questions was just the cyclist being an c0ck The bottom line is; if the cyclist ran a red light he deserves to get a fixed penalty notice, if he fails to give to the officer his details in order that the fixed penalty notice can be issued he deserves to get arrested. If the cyclist has evidence from his c0ck cam that he didn't run the red light, he can go to the magistrates court and contest the fixed penalty notice, although I suspect he did run the red light judging by his behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosh Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 aka PACE. Yes you can be arrested for failing to disclose to a Police officer your identity, the purpose of the arrest is for investigations to be completed to establish your identity. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 a cyclist cannot run a red light. All the other questions was just the cyclist being an c0ck The bottom line is; if the cyclist ran a red light he deserves to get a fixed penalty notice, if he fails to give to the officer his details in order that the fixed penalty notice can be issued he deserves to get arrested. If the cyclist has evidence from his c0ck cam that he didn't run the red light, he can go to the magistrates court and contest the fixed penalty notice, although I suspect he did run the red light judging by his behavior. +1.. I hope he is soon arrested for the offence for which he was stopped and for obstruction and for resisting arrest. I hope his bike and camera are crushed.... kn0b Most of his admirers on here are just spouting anti police rubbish. The policeman was weak. The cyclist a dangerous fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The law is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 aka PACE. Yes you can be arrested for failing to disclose to a Police officer your identity, the purpose of the arrest is for investigations to be completed to establish your identity. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 a cyclist cannot run a red light. At the risk of being compared to a cyclist allegedly acting like a c0ck, could you be more specific and quote the relevant parts of those two statutes that would apply in these circumstances ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 At the risk of being compared to a cyclist allegedly acting like a c0ck, could you be more specific and quote the relevant parts of those two statutes that would apply in these circumstances ? I can Sec 24 (4) and (5) (a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arrest to ascertain identity. Sec 28 and 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 dangerous/careless riding. Stop powers see Sec 163 (2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I can Sec 24 (4) and (5) (a) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arrest to ascertain identity. Sec 28 and 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 dangerous/careless riding. Stop powers see Sec 163 (2) Isn't the former conditional on the latter ? Would you be confident that the latter could be presented before a court ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Isn't the former conditional on the latter ? Would you be confident that the latter could be presented before a court ? No, if an officer suspects an offence was committed then the officer can arrest to ascertain identity, even if the offence was not normally an arrestable offence. Note that all offences are now arrestable. Further, how could the offence get to court if the officer did not establish the identity of the offender. The courts are only there to establish guilt, it is for the enforcement body to establish identity, hence the power of arrest to establish identity under PACE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 No, if an officer suspects an offence was committed then the officer can arrest to ascertain identity, even if the offence was not normally an arrestable offence. Note that all offences are now arrestable. Further, how could the offence get to court if the officer did not establish the identity of the offender. The courts are only there to establish guilt, it is for the enforcement body to establish identity, hence the power of arrest to establish identity under PACE. Entering the world of speculation, what offence do you think PC Stout suspected had been committed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Entering the world of speculation, what offence do you think PC Stout suspected had been committed ? Are you being serious? He ran a red light or more correctly the officer suspected or knew he ran the red light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Are you being serious? He ran a red light or more correctly the officer suspected or knew he ran the red light. Were you a witness to the suspected offence ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.