PDA

View Full Version : Suffering aggressive driving from an unexpected source.


eal401
13th Feb 2006, 12:21
Yesterday afternoon, I was driving westbound on the M55. It was a wet afternoon, but traffic was light. Approaching the Kirkham exit, I indicated at the 3 bar sign and pulled onto the slip road.

As I did so, a van behind suddenly decided to veer off the motorway after me. No indication or anything. He hovered in between lanes until I started indicating and then veered into my lane behind me. At the roundabout I went around to the right and exiting with the van following me. Shortly after the exit, the speed limit dropped to 50mph and I duly complied. The van driver came to what appeared to be inches from my back bumper (in the wet remember) to the extent that I couldn't see his headlights! He then pulled to the right until his left headlight was almost against my rear right light cluster. Then he backed off a little. In the mean time, I carried on at 45mph, then slowing to 40 when the limit changed thus. I ensured there was adequate space between me and the car in front and maintained a steady speed.

In the meantime, matey in the van continues his antics, coming right up, dangerously close, into the middle of the road towards the back right corner of my car as previously described. This continues for about 3 miles, then he turns off into a petrol station.

So, what is so odd about this?

Well, the van's colour scheme was blue and flourescent yellow checks and it had "Police" written on the front!!

So nice to see such a good example set as usual! I did take the number plate, but am wary of taking things further despite this idiot putting mine and my wife's lives at risk along with other road users.

My car is fully insured, taxed, all lights work, I wasn't speeding etc. What the hell was going on?

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2006, 12:36
Failure to make proper progress. You're lucky you didn't get pulled and breathalysed.
BTW, this van wasn't by any chance 'blowing his horn' and flashing blue lights at you?

It might be worth calling in and asking to speak to the head of Traffic - not as a complaint, you understand, but as 'information'. Make it clear that you won't take it any further (this time), and hope that such never happens again. Probably an 'enthusiastic' young bobby feeling 'important'.
DON'T get fobbed-off by the desk sergeant, insist on speaking face to face with the head of traffic (and check his credentials - you don't want to talk with a stooge). Don't reveal what your 'complaint' is, and if they say it isn't possible, write to 'Head of Traffic' and suggest an informal meeting (WRT safety) but don't declare your hand until you get him (or her) in front of you. A formal complaint would never succeed (your word against the dozen in the van!), and only make you a target of the 'lower' orders.

Oh! - and WRITE down a full account of the series of incidents as you remember it as soon as possible (to show the fuzz that you have your facts right and that you consider the incident(s) to be serious, and not just a moan against the boys in blue for being 'beyond the law').

lasernigel
13th Feb 2006, 12:41
eal 401 Well you were going through Esprick..and guess what?One turned up behind you.:ok:

airship
13th Feb 2006, 13:22
Warning: "Objects in the mirror appear to be closer..." :p :uhoh:

UniFoxOs
13th Feb 2006, 13:49
Trying to intimidate you into breaking the speed limit??

Advised action, slow down even more to allow yourself a long enough gap between yourself and the vehicle in front to allow for the TWO stopping distances you need to avoid a crash in the event of the guy in front happening to emergency stop. Of course, if that pi55es off the [email protected] in the vehicle behind you can have a slight smile.

UFO

Jo Cover
13th Feb 2006, 14:46
It was me... I was going to an armed robbery at the garage where the cashier was being held at gunpoint and couldn't use the sirens in fear of warning the offenders of my approach and putting the cashier in even more danger of being shot...

It would have helped if you studied the view in your mirrors more closely and also pulled over to let me by. My positioning was a little obvious that I needed to pass wasn't it?

Its ok, we wont be reporting you for obstructing the police.

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2006, 15:03
What IS the law about a Police vehicle 'proceeding to a 999 call' but being 'unable' to use blues and twos?

Onan the Clumsy
13th Feb 2006, 15:10
Is there still a mental hospital at Wesham?

Jo Cover
13th Feb 2006, 15:23
The 'law' is that its totally at the descretion of the driver.

Sometimes the use of noise and lights can hinder progress through traffic rather than assist it. Motorways are one example on various occasions.

Another thing you have to think of what happens if the fuse suppplying the kit goes u/s on the way to an incident. Should the driver not proceed with due haste without the use of the kit?

lasernigel
13th Feb 2006, 15:24
No they're all mental in Wesham.Army camp is just down the road!

acbus1
13th Feb 2006, 16:18
He was in need of a loo, urgently?

Grainger
13th Feb 2006, 16:18
Seems like some people need to make their minds up.

Since speed limits are so overzealously enforced these days, you can hardly complain when you get stuck behind someone who doesn't want to get points for going a couple of mph over the limit.

Blind adherence to the letter of the law or mutual understanding and co-operation. You decide.

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 16:56
EAL

Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.

Thus eliminating any danger to your vehicle and family?

markflyer6580
13th Feb 2006, 16:59
should have got out and indulged in some road rage! :}

Onan the Clumsy
13th Feb 2006, 17:01
Another thing you have to think of what happens if the fuse suppplying the kit goes u/s on the way to an incident. Should the driver not proceed with due haste without the use of the kit?No, he should stop. It's ok saying there was a blag at the local GPO, but (1) there'll be other units covering it and (2) how ironic it would be to race silently to the scene, only to find it had ended peacefully except that on the way you broadsided someone's granny and killed them?


Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.
Cos that'd be aiding and abetting :8


The 'law' is that its totally at the descretion of the driver.or in this case the desecration?

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 17:37
Onan the Clumsy

"Quote:
Another thing you have to think of what happens if the fuse suppplying the kit goes u/s on the way to an incident. Should the driver not proceed with due haste without the use of the kit?

No, he should stop. It's ok saying there was a blag at the local GPO, but (1) there'll be other units covering it and (2) how ironic it would be to race silently to the scene, only to find it had ended peacefully except that on the way you broadsided someone's granny and killed them"

Obviously never been in an emergency vehicle, doesn't matter that you have everything lit up, and everything making a noise going, you can garentee that every few days someone will walk out/pull out or do something daft in front of you because they haven't looked.

"Quote:
Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.

Cos that'd be aiding and abetting "

Aiding and abetting what?

If the other vehicle is causing danger, would the sensible option not be to get out of the way, let it pass?

Jerricho
13th Feb 2006, 17:44
Cos that'd be aiding and abetting "
Aiding and abetting what?

A sense of humour malfunction........ ;)

Don't worry OtC, I got it :ok:

SyllogismCheck
13th Feb 2006, 18:16
Perhaps it wasn't possible to pull over safely and let the van pass, bjcc.

I'd have thought that if the police driver were responding to a legitimate emergency, he'd at least give the vehicle in front a couple of flashes of his main beam to indicate his presence and requirement to pass. Doing so is hardly likely to alert the potential crooks at the petrol station from what sounds like anything up to a mile away now is it? Same goes for a quick spin of the blues.

You know, I rather rate most police drivers. I've seen many good examples of driving by them and by comparison only one chuck it away stupidly and spectacularly (in a less than month old Omega much to his pain I imagine) and only once nearly been hit by one due to blatant excessive speed through a blind bend.
What I really don't understand is why those who champion the police tirelessly seem completely blinkered to the fact that they are just as likely to display utterly abysmal roadcraft as any other road user on occasion. It happens, fact. Get over it. Why the need for all the 'what ifs' and 'it can't be true' nonsense? At time police drivers, in police vehicles, drive like idiots. They are not immune to the phenomenon of momentary idiocy. A case in point being the WPC driving the unmarked yet entirely obvious Astra in walking pace traffic, whilst holding her phone clamped to her ear, attempting to move across, without signalling, into a left turn lane from the adjacent straight on lane at a juction where the road layout had been changed months previously and had a sequence of 9 foot long arrows well in advance of the lane split to remind people to move to the appropriate lane in good time, and blatantly failing to adjust her maneouver in spite of the fact that the point at which her bonnet was entering the lane at a fairly acute angle was filled with my drivers door. I mean, it's really something when you have to sound your horn to warn drivers, occasionally even police drivers, who are behind you of their proximity to a collision with yourself. Actually then, best make that nearly hit by two.

Get real, chaps. We all get it wrong or do silly things sometimes. Blue lights on the roof don't make it impossible. :rolleyes:



Was the petrol station one that sells coffee and hot snacks, maybe doughnuts, by chance, eal? ;)

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2006, 18:23
Which was why I suggested 'having a word' with the 'Traffic' Chief. He (or she) won't want idiots getting the Force into disrepute. (I realise that the driver of a van probably isn't 'Traffic', but Noddies probably don't appreciate the need to DRIVE considerately.)

MMEMatty
13th Feb 2006, 18:36
Some of the worst, most dangerous (to my untrained eye) has been performed by policemen (and women) in marked and unmarked cars.


Truly they all deserve their nickname "top gun". And its not a compliment


Matt

Send Clowns
13th Feb 2006, 19:12
But Syllogism

If we are breaking the speed limits then we can't possibly be judgres of our own speed, we cannot possibly be good enough to judge for ourselves by the circumstances, and must abdicate that responsibility to some town-hall clerk. Yet if the police drive fast or close to other vehicles, well then they must know it is safe, or that the hazard is proportional to the urgency ...

bjcc has shown the most astonishing double standards in seemingly blaming eal for the hazard here.

Cool_Hand
13th Feb 2006, 19:28
Just as another point of view, what if it wasn't the police driving it?
I've seen police vehicles being driven by by non police, I figure it was a 'return to station after some repairs' or 'positioning' but it definately wasn't police.
In all honesty I expected that they should have covered the police signs so road users weren't confused, I think it actually had a sign in the window indicating in transit. Saying that, everyone going past did stay within the speed limit.
It might be worth reporting it just in case it was one of these events and someone was abusing the vehicle.

419
13th Feb 2006, 20:14
Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.
Maybe this
"A driver thought he was doing the right thing by moving over for a police car with flashing blue lights. Martyn Knight was soon thinking again – after the officer booked him for nudging through a red traffic light. Mr Knight was on his way home from work when he drew up at pelican lights in his Renault Clio. A police car raced up behind and the 19-year-old barman moved on through th elights and on to the side of the road. The ‘helpful' move of a few feet cost him a £60 fixed penalty and three points on his licence"
Or this
A DRIVER who jumped a red light to let a 999 ambulance pass has been given a £60 fine and three points on his licence.Railway engineer Mark Freeman, 36, was snapped edging across a junction near his home in Doncaster, South Yorks.
.
Maybe eal thought if he pulled over, he might get booked for stopping where he shouldn't.

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2006, 20:38
'Traffic' Police are usually Advanced Drivers (whereas Noddies only need 'a licence' to earn a driving permit). I've been through the Police Advanced Driver's Course, and, although I was already an experienced professional (high speed) driver I DID learn a lot (including respect for Police Traffic High-Speed Pursuit Drivers). Just like human beings, there's a wide variation in driving skills amongst 'the Police', but only those who have passed-out from the stringent training get to drive jam-sandwiches. Others might be a danger, even on a bicycle (just like the General Public), and given the belief that they are untouchable because of their profession . . .

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 20:39
SC

Nice to see you're back with your normal grasp of ...erm, nothing.

Simple common sense says that if a vehicle is behind you, driving in a manner you consider dangerous, slow down.....If nessesary, stop! Is it that difficult to grasp?

Thats always assuming the EAL's recollection is accurate.

SyllogismCheck

I agree, there are some appauling examples of police driving about.

Basic drivers, the name changes between forces have no specific training, other than that which the public have recieved. Is it a good idea? No, but the Home Office have decreed that for going from point A to point B to do non emergency jobs that is sufficent. And it is, provided thats all they do.

However, it is very difficult to expect a police officer, who maybe the only person nearby who can get to an emergency, not to go. And of course the EAL's and SC's of this world moan like drains when police don't turn up quick.

Those who are trained should go, but are not always free to do so. You want police there quick, the non trained officer does what the public wants, maybe not too efficently, but then job gets done. Not right, I agree, but thats life.

Given that at a rough guess police vehicles are driven in excess of 15 million miles in a year, the accident rate is very very very low.

So if SC you can show the same proud boast for your occupation, feel free to make you sarcastic comments.

G-CPTN

Rubbish. All Police officers, whether traffic or not can do an advanced driving course. In London each station has an area car, not manned by traffic that has to be driven by an advanced driver.As you are not a police officer I very much doubt your claim to have been on a Police advanced course. Have you not claimed in the past to have a brother in Essex Pol, and made wrong claims about breath test kits? I wonder...........

Binoculars
13th Feb 2006, 21:13
Sounds like a good opportunity to verify your claimed credentials, G-CPTN. Why not?

G-CPTN
13th Feb 2006, 21:26
G-CPTN
Rubbish. All Police officers, whether traffic or not can do an advanced driving course. In London each station has an area car, not manned by traffic that has to be driven by an advanced driver.As you are not a police officer I very much doubt your claim to have been on a Police advanced course. Have you not claimed in the past to have a brother in Essex Pol, and made wrong claims about breath test kits? I wonder...........

I have NOT got a brother in any Police Force, and, I admit that my knowledge of the standard of Police Driving is well out of current experience. I have NEVER commented, here or anywhere else about breathalysers (or breath test kits). I have zero experience about breath testing, having never ever SEEN a breath test kit in any capacity. You have mistaken me for another.

I have, indeed, been on a Police Advanced Driving Course. It was a concession granted by the Police, because of the close work that I was doing with Police vehicles and high-speed driving on public roads. You seek to discredit me, yet I was praising the officers that I met on that course (and, by implication, graduates of that course). I also implied that pursuit drivers are highly trained, whereas 'Plod' may have no training beyond that afforded to civilians (as I believe you confirmed), and can be just as much a menace as Joe Public.

I wonder what you wonder (and why?)


I refer you to the title of this thread . . . .

eal401
13th Feb 2006, 21:37
Thats always assuming the EAL's recollection is accurate.
At the time I posted, it was less than 24 hours since the incident. So, my recollection is perfectly accurate.

Mind you, I might of known you'd leap to the defence of a police officer in such circumstances.

Oh, and as someone with significantly greater common sense and intelligence than you pointed out, it was not safe to stop.

Two faced double standards of the highest order, as expected. :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 21:38
G-CPTN

I may be wrong over the essex pol thing, memory may not be as it was.

However, I am suprised you claim to have been on a police advanced course. Firstly, because has you done so, you would be aware that it is not the exclusive reserve of traffic officers.
Certainly in my old force, the majority of advanced drivers were not traffic. as you put it noddys. That is noddys who had a 3 or 5 week standard course, followed by a 2 day van course, then a 6 week part one advanced and a 4 week follow up to qualify.
Second reason to doubt your claim, is that the course invloves breaking speed limits and on occations authorised traffic signs, eg stop signs and traffic lights. You would not be authorised to do that. And whatever yopu do for a living high speed chases are not relevent to you, unless you are a police officer.
My third reason to doubt your claim, is why? You say you are empoyed doing high speed driving. Well, unless you work for the fire, police or ambulance service, you would only be able to drive with the speed limits. So why would you need the course?
Lastly, in these H&S days, well enough said about that peice of stupidity...In fact I would be happy to see non police officers being allowed to go on an advanced course, or even a 'dulled' down version> It might wake a few people up.

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 21:43
EAL

Perhaps you can explain how it is safe to stop anywhere else, but not when you have a vehicle behind you being driven, as you discribe is an extreemly dangerous manner? Surely, slow gentle braking would be perfectly safe, on any road.

Onan the Clumsy
13th Feb 2006, 21:54
If the other vehicle is causing danger, would the sensible option not be to get out of the way, let it pass?What if you had a learner driver, or a bus load of blind orphans, or a train of donkeys being led to the seaside by a scruffy looking girl with an admirable physique? What then? Should you let a lunatic pass, or, by being a buffer between him and the underskilled or undercapable road user in front, might you not save them from their inevitable panic as they suffer under the intolerable behaivoir of the lunatic and thereby save the rivers of blood that would surely flow as a result of the ensuing carnage?

Reasonable doubt your honour. Reasnoable doubt is all I have to show and I believe I have shown it quite clearly.

No further questions m'lud.

Send Clowns
13th Feb 2006, 21:56
bjcc

Can you actually read? Is there any chance you will answer what I write, rather than what you imagine I might be thinking?

Indeed I've done waht you suggest, and have ended up stopped. The driver threatened to run me over. The police were very good about that, and offered to take things further.

However you are defending the policeman in circumstances more certainly hazardous than any of the speed limit infringemets you seem so certain are hazardous. That is a simple concept, exactly the one I put down before. Any chance you will address that rather than rant at me at a tangent? You also implied that the victim of this aggressive driving was at fault, without any criticism of the perpetrator!whatever yopu [sic] do for a living high speed chases are not relevent to you, unless you are a police officer.What a bizarre statement. Certainly complete garbage, and pompous as well.

SyllogismCheck
13th Feb 2006, 22:16
So if SC you can show the same proud boast for your occupation, feel free to make you sarcastic comments. I assume this, being in the part of your post so addressed, is aimed at me, so I shall respond.

No, I cannot make any such 'proud boast', as you call it. I don't have, and don't imagine there exist, any such annual mileage statistics for my profession. It's by the by anyway. I was simply taking you to task on what seemed to be an inability on your part to accept that the police driver may well have been the one at fault.

I fail to see what was in any way sarcastic about my comments. They were facts.

The WPC in the Astra did nearly drive into me as a result of driving carelessly, whilst on the phone and in conflict with the road markings and traffic flow.
The guy in the Omega did drive it straight off the road and through a large sign post on the central divider whilst exiting a roundabout for no reason other than his failure to recover an initially minor slide.
The driver of the unmarked Mondeo that rounded the blind bend occupying as much of my roadspace as his or her own at such an excess of speed that recovery into their lane was impossible and caused me the need to drive half my vehicle onto the, fortunately unobstructed, grass verge and a good few inches into the bushes there in order to avoid a 50% overlap, head on impact at a closing speed almost certainly in excess of 120mph (my 60 and their 60+ mph) did get it grossly wrong and endanger both my own life and that of the other occupants of the police vehicle.

Two of theses three vehicles were traffic vehicles. In fact, one, the Mondeo, was, as likely as not, a training vehicle.

So, where's the sarcasm? I'm simply telling it as it was.

Or were you simply referring to the the doughnut comment? If so - lighten up. ;)

Still, all said and done, you've agreed that you're aware of incidences of abysmal police driving and my only isssue was that your tone seemed to suggest a reluctance to accept that could have been the case. It seems we agree, it could well have been the case.

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 22:49
SC

"If we are breaking the speed limits then we can't possibly be judgres of our own speed, we cannot possibly be good enough to judge for ourselves by the circumstances, and must abdicate that responsibility to some town-hall clerk. Yet if the police drive fast or close to other vehicles, well then they must know it is safe, or that the hazard is proportional to the urgency ...

bjcc has shown the most astonishing double standards in seemingly blaming eal for the hazard here."

Dealing with EAL's problem first:

My answer was:

"EAL

Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.

Thus eliminating any danger to your vehicle and family?"

So, your point is what exactly? EAL claims he was put in danger by the police vehicle driving too close. Slowly breaking and pulling over would allow the vehicle to pass and therefore eliminate the danger. Simple, but please point out where I have made EAL into a victim and blamed him?

Your other point. Please read what you wrote again, and tell me where there is a non retorical or non sarcastic point. So what would you like me to answer?

I can't answer for the Police driver in this incident, IF EAL is giving a true and accurate summery, then yes, the police driver is in the wrong. But I stand by my point, if it was that dangerous, why not pull over. He says it was not safe to do so. I cannot see how it can be safe to contuinue yet not safe to pull over????????

Now turning to your last post. Do most drivers need to get involved in car chases? No. In fact, apart from Police officers, does anyone need too? No. What is a large proportion of the advanced driving course made up of? Chases. So why is my comment "What a bizarre statement. Certainly complete garbage, and pompous as well."?

SyllogismCheck

No, it wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at SC.

I agree there are some awful examples of police driving. In an ideal world it wouldn't happen. But it's not, and they do.

Bad drving is a reflection on the entire driving population, and even those trained to a high standard sometimes cock it up. But overall, given the high mileage clocked up by police vehicles and the type of driving conducted, there are very few accidents.

Binoculars
13th Feb 2006, 22:55
Certainly complete garbage, and pompous as well.

Why Send Clowns? I'm trying to think of an occupation outside the emergency services where high speed chases are relevant. The only thing I can think of with even close relevance would be some of these bodyguard/chauffeur types for the self-important powerbrokers, diplomats etc, but no high speed chaswe they get involved in would be considered legal. Are you going to invoke James Bond here?

ShyTorque
13th Feb 2006, 22:59
bjcc,

"Simple common sense says that if a vehicle is behind you, driving in a manner you consider dangerous, slow down.....If nessesary, stop! Is it that difficult to grasp?"

:confused: On a motorway slip road or a roundabout? Surely not. Weren't you strongly criticising a certain lady for stopping on a motorway hard shoulder, only a couple of weeks back?

If you're going to make a stand, at least be consistent. :rolleyes:

BTW, there is NO excuse for tailgating. Advanced driver or not.

bjcc
13th Feb 2006, 23:05
ShyTorque

EAL wasn't on a motorway.

On a motorway, you have the option of changing lanes as an alternative to stopping.

Binoculars

SC referred to my comment that high speed chaes are not an issue fro non police drivers as:

"What a bizarre statement. Certainly complete garbage, and pompous as well."

A strange comment, as you point out that apart from emergency, or specificly police drivers, no one else gets involved in them and the advanced police driving course is largly how to conduct a chase.

The groups you mention maybe on the other side of a chase, ie the chased, which is a differnt sort of driving.

As for James Bond & co....there are survallance driving courses, which don't involve chases. the idea being not to show out.

Whirlygig
13th Feb 2006, 23:08
Yesterday afternoon, I was driving westbound on the M55
From eal401's original post. I believe the M55 is a motorway.

Cheers

Whirls

ShyTorque
13th Feb 2006, 23:15
As far as the highway code is concerned, a slip road is considered part of the motorway.

Send Clowns
13th Feb 2006, 23:40
bjcc

You really ought to go back to school. It is quite clear you are incapable of comprehending anything you read! Either that or you wilfully misrepresent what other people are saying.

You accuse me of using rhetoric, then you deliberately exagerate my comment to a ridiculous level in order to win an argument, only you are arguing against something I never said! It's known as a "Straw Man", and is a completely dishonest piece of rhetoric. Where did I say "most drivers need to get into chases"?

Nothing I wrote was sarcastic. It was a summary of the views you have expressed here, and quite obviously so. Since this is a debate then everything said in opposing opinions is rhetorical, so of course what I said was rhetorical. Everything you have said is rhetorical, and as I pointed out some is pure rhetoric, made up entirely for the occasion!

Where did I say you turned eal401 into a victim? He was the victim of aggressive driving, yet in your intial post you implied that he was to blame, by criticising his actions without making any comment on the actions of the police.

In fact pretty much everything you posted in reply to me either misrepresents what I have said or responds to a misinterpretation of what I say. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, or you are so arrogant that you assume you know what I really mean as opposed to what I write, then what is the point of posting?

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 00:04
My oh my how seriously you lot take things... My post was all tongue in cheek!!

But you seem to have missed some points...

Whirly... ''As I did so, a van behind suddenly decided to veer off the motorway after me. No indication or anything. He hovered in between lanes until I started indicating and then veered into my lane behind me. At the roundabout I went around to the right and exiting with the van following me. Shortly after the exit, the speed limit dropped to 50mph and I duly complied.The van driver came to what appeared to be inches from my back bumper (in the wet remember) to the extent that I couldn't see his headlights ''

Bit of a clue there. He had left the motorway.


G-CPTN I would be interested in knowing where you completed your driving course. Was it a sunday day course which so many average motorists claim to have done then quote doing the Police Advanced course? Also your info to 'check the head of traffics credentials' Will he or she have a document stating that they are the head of traffic? Simple answer... NO! And your terms for the officers are a very much as if they have come out of 'Life On Mars'

Onan... You talk so much carp!

Another thing you have to think of what happens if the fuse suppplying the kit goes u/s on the way to an incident. Should the driver not proceed with due haste without the use of the kit?

No, he should stop. It's ok saying there was a blag at the local GPO, but (1) there'll be other units covering it and (2) how ironic it would be to race silently to the scene, only to find it had ended peacefully except that on the way you broadsided someone's granny and killed them?'

Was there an incident where the granny was broadsided? Don't think from the origional post there was a suggestion of that.

Do you know there will always be other units going? What if they are in the other units were already committed? It happens and regularly!

Quote:
Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.

Cos that'd be aiding and abetting :8 Aiding and abetting what exactly??


If the other vehicle is causing danger, would the sensible option not be to get out of the way, let it pass?

What if you had a learner driver, or a bus load of blind orphans, or a train of donkeys being led to the seaside by a scruffy looking girl with an admirable physique? What then? Should you let a lunatic pass, or, by being a buffer between him and the underskilled or undercapable road user in front, might you not save them from their inevitable panic as they suffer under the intolerable behaivoir of the lunatic and thereby save the rivers of blood that would surely flow as a result of the ensuing carnage?

Reasonable doubt your honour. Reasnoable doubt is all I have to show and I believe I have shown it quite clearly.

No further questions m'lud.

Onan, you definitly need to take more water with it! A doctor should be able to assist with the oral dioreah too.


Still, there wasn't an accident and they all lived hapilly ever after!!

Whirlygig
14th Feb 2006, 00:12
From eal401's original post. I believe the M55 is a motorway.

Cheers

Whirls



Whirly... ''As I did so, a van behind suddenly decided to veer off the motorway after me. No indication or anything. He hovered in between lanes until I started indicating and then veered into my lane behind me. At the roundabout I went around to the right and exiting with the van following me. Shortly after the exit, the speed limit dropped to 50mph and I duly complied.The van driver came to what appeared to be inches from my back bumper (in the wet remember) to the extent that I couldn't see his headlights ''

Bit of a clue there. He had left the motorway.


Jo Cover - isn't that the point I was making? I was fully aware it was a motorway. It was bjcc who said it wasn't in response to ShyT's post.

Cheers

WhirlS

PANDAMATENGA
14th Feb 2006, 00:14
bjcc


As usual your "riding forth" in defence of your ex-brothers in blue whilst perhaps admirable is actually extremely naive and dare I say ignorant.

Why should EAL pull over and stop just because some tossers in Police van are driving like idiots behind him. He should have followed them to the gas station and given them what for. Naturally, you will be aware that law abiding drivers cannot do that because the Nazis can and will make their life hell. In other words as long as I am in a police car I can drive how I like, park where I like without sanction.

Abuse of power is what I call it

And by the way your comment " Assuming EAL is telling like it happened"" is blo*dy outrageous.

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 00:18
Whirls.... Noooooo... the incident happened off the motorway. The van didn't start tail gating till after the roundabout!! Its in the origional post...:ok:

Loose rivets
14th Feb 2006, 04:51
What passion! Get a car out of its garage and the old brain chemistry alters instantly.

It's my interested opinion, that, police driving reached a peak in the late seventies. Since then, the work-load demands and financial constraints, have diluted a wold standard of pursuit driving. Furthermore, increased traffic congestion has caused the need for a total re-evaluation of the need for high speed chases.

Back to the main point of the thread.

There will always be the loose cannon of an officer that lets down his colleagues. Self importance and arrogance radiate from his driving. The car's body language shouts bullying.

I'm personally convinced, that until a few years ago, most of the ‘traffic' drivers have tried to uphold the old standards. What is bewildering is the seeming absence of these professionals on today's roads. In a conversation across the Atlantic this week end, a retired police driver was talking of his weeks of motoring without seeing any of his old departments vehicles. ‘Just revenue collecting cameras.' ( He thinks the same about these as the majority of us.)

It used to be that our police would come here to the States to train local police. I don't think that happens anymore.

bjcc
14th Feb 2006, 05:42
Whirlygig


"As I did so, a van behind suddenly decided to veer off the motorway after me. No indication or anything. He hovered in between lanes until I started indicating and then veered into my lane behind me. At the roundabout I went around to the right and exiting with the van following me. Shortly after the exit, the speed limit dropped to 50mph and I duly complied. The van driver came to what appeared to be inches from my back bumper (in the wet remember) to the extent that I couldn't see his headlights! He then pulled to the right until his left headlight was almost against my rear right light cluster. Then he backed off a little. In the mean time, I carried on at 45mph, then slowing to 40 when the limit changed thus. I ensured there was adequate space between me and the car in front and maintained a steady speed."


So, it was on a motorway was it? I think you ought to read first, thank you Jo Cover.



SC

Please read post 12. Then show me where I implied anything about EAL. No, I didn't critise the 'actions' of police. Nor have I critised (in that post) anything about EAL. Just suggested the safe option, get out of the way!

Then read the last line of your topic 21.

After you have done that, consider your accusations against me.

Then sit back, and let them plug your chair in!

lasernigel
14th Feb 2006, 07:40
Originally Posted by Whirlygig
From eal401's original post. I believe the M55 is a motorway.


Eal 401 said he had exited the M55 and at the roundabout turned right,from anyone who doesn't know the area this is a minor A road,narrow with nowhere to pull over to if you are going north upto Windy harbour and through Esprick.It has always had a reputation as an accident prone road and if the copper was local he should have known this and not been up EAL 401's arse.It is typical of coppers attitude today to do as I say not as I do.:*

eal401
14th Feb 2006, 07:50
Why, if his 'antics' were so dangerous, did you not just pull over and let it pass.
To return to this point.

Why should I have done? I did take action in that I reduced speed and increased the gap between myself and the vehicle in front. Why should I do anything else if I do not consider it safe to do so? Quite frankly, I was concerned how any braking on my part not connected with normal driving might be taken!

Absolutely beggars belief that despite describing this behaviour, bjcc still manages to twist it to make it my problem and concern despite the fact that I was obeying the Highway Code to the letter. To be expected from him I suppose.

Oh, and as pointed out, to avoid confusion, I had exited the motorway at the point this all occurred.

And another thing, Mr Police Officer exited the motorway, negotiated the roundabout and turned off the main road with, as far as I could tell, no use of indication. Not that this will be considered a problem by certain individuals.

Whirlygig
14th Feb 2006, 07:57
off the motorway after me. No indication or anything. He hovered in between lanes until I started indicating and then veered into my lane behind me.
So this would be the slip road then?


ShyTorque - As far as the highway code is concerned, a slip road is considered part of the motorway


I've read the post - eal401, could you please confirm that the incident commenced on the slip road? 'Cos that's how it reads to me. If not, then I humbly apologise.

Cheers

Whirls

419
14th Feb 2006, 08:32
There might have been a roundabout involved, but that doesn't mean that the road wasn't covered by motorway driving regulations.

For anyone who doubts this, consider the M23 exit at Gatwick airport.
You turn off the motorway on to the slip road, then you come to a roundabout, after which you have a dual carriageway (the one that leads to the new "Welcome to gatwick sign"

All of this, including the roundabout, is still classed as a motorway, until the end of the dual carriageway section, when you reach airport way.

G-CPTN
14th Feb 2006, 08:46
My oh my how seriously you lot take things...

G-CPTN I would be interested in knowing where you completed your driving course. Was it a sunday day course which so many average motorists claim to have done then quote doing the Police Advanced course? Also your info to 'check the head of traffics credentials' Will he or she have a document stating that they are the head of traffic? Simple answer... NO! And your terms for the officers are a very much as if they have come out of 'Life On Mars'

My reference to the Advanced Driving wasn't an attempt to establish that 'my hours are greater than yours', but was to establish how competent these guys are, even from the perspective of someone who is not just an average Sunday motorist, and no, my attendance wasn't on a Sunday, but during the course of the working weeks, and not just a one-day course.

With respect to checking credentials, I was hinting that asking to see a particular officer MIGHT get you fobbed-off by an ordinary officer. My correspondence to the Chief Constable was intercepted, despite being marked personal, and it was obvious that the CC never got to see it. (He had issued a comment stating that he had no knowledge of a particular situation, but would be pleased to hear . . . etc etc , yet his minions still protected him from receiving this information.)

My respect for TRAINED Police Drivers remains, as does my belief that many 'Police Drivers' are no different to the rest of society. I believe that bjcc confirmed that, and that was the basis (and extent) of my original comment.

To attract aggression from unexpected sources . . .

SOME Police Officers, in my experience, ARE from Mars, just like some members of the public (even some of those who PPRuNe).

Grainger
14th Feb 2006, 08:48
When I did my Advanced Driving course, I was taught that it is always my responsibility to make progress safely, not anyone else's.

The only person in the wrong here is the police van driver. It was his responsibility to drive safely behind the other vehicle and his responsibility to find a safe place to pass.

Blaming EAL for not moving over is a complete red herring. Especially from someone who was not there and could not possibly comment on whether it would have been safe to do so or not. In my experience, slowing down to let people pass usually results in a lunge at my rear bumper rather than a safe "right-angled triangle" overtake so no, it isn't obvious that would have been the right response.

Let's keep the blame where it belongs. Whether on a shout or not there is no excuse for tailgating and the other dangerous antics.

flybhx
14th Feb 2006, 09:26
[QUOTE=G-CPTN]
With respect to checking credentials, I was hinting that asking to see a particular officer MIGHT get you fobbed-off by an ordinary officer. My correspondence to the Chief Constable was intercepted, despite being marked personal, and it was obvious that the CC never got to see it. (He had issued a comment stating that he had no knowledge of a particular situation, but would be pleased to hear . . . etc etc , yet his minions still protected him from receiving this information.)


Just like most large organisations I would suggest.

Looking at the whole thread it would appear to me that the van driver actually made it harder for him/her self. A smooth and efficient overtake is far better carried out for sitting back from the vehicle ahead to avoid sharp pulling out and possibly clipping the bumper or just losing control when having to rapidly straighten up again.

On another point it is very obvious that there are some very anti-police views on JB and also some that believe that the police can do no wrong. Using the term Nazi to describe them is pushing the rules of jet blast a little close to the limit I would suggest.

CherokeeDriver
14th Feb 2006, 10:57
I can't belive the bad driving of some pimply faced youth in a white van has provoked so much debate. Haven't you all got homes to go to?

Binoculars
14th Feb 2006, 11:29
Ahh, CD, spot on. But you appear to have missed the salient point, the raison d'etre for threads involving driving skills or lack of same. That point is quite simply this; ALL of you bastards are hopeless drivers, and I can prove it by relating anecdotal incidents, which may or may not have any grounding in reality, but without exception they make me look good. There are occasional exceptions to this, like F1 test drivers and above, but I could be as good as them if I were given the chance.

You'll notice that the posters are almost exclusively male. When you look at it with an unjaundiced eye it's really quite funny. A bit like the strutting that goes on with any of the threads involving sex, or personal turnons, you know the sort. The male gender is an endless source of amusement. :8

G-CPTN
14th Feb 2006, 12:02
WHEN did it become de rigeur to close a road for considerable periods after a serious injury accident? This is an understandable precaution, but it never used to be the situation. WHAT triggered this sudden desire to collect every possible scrap of evidence? Presumably there is a 'procedure' which has to be followed? Is there a dispensation which allows 'trapped' vehicles to turn around and leave dual-carriageways and motorways, or do they have to 'stay put'?

frostbite
14th Feb 2006, 12:23
Good point there, G-CPTN. I recall a recent post elsewhere from a chap in Manila who witnessed an accident, followed by a shootout, leaving human and vehicle corpses at a junction. When he returned from shopping, just 20 minutes later - not a trace of the incident!

Onan the Clumsy
14th Feb 2006, 12:32
Hey Jo

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y272/onan_the_clumsy/ThatsSomeGoodFishing.jpg



...and no, I still don't think you should continue if the lights/sirens fail. I would be equally dead and equally unhappy about it were I to be shot by a robber or t-boned by a speeding motorist.

bjcc
14th Feb 2006, 13:00
I don't think any one, having read this thread, again, has said it was down to EAL. What has been suggested by me, is that he pull over. He was quite admimant that driver of the van was dangerous, therefore, sense says, if its dangerous, pull over. let the danger go past.

In spite of what Grainger says, it is EVERY drivers responsibility to make the roads safe, That means there are times, when you have to respond to make it safe, even though someone else wont/can't/isn't.

EAL, I do think you may be guilding the lilly somewhat. I have never seen 2 vehicles in a position where if the front one touches his brakes, or, allows his vehicle to slow without breaking, then the driver of the rear one could not, if he was looking respond. There is a vast difference between that and locking up the whells and screeching to a halt. Had you not been one of the people who attacks police at any opertunity, I may be more inclined to believe you totally.

Jerricho
14th Feb 2006, 15:02
ALL of you bastards are hopeless drivers

Binos me old, you crack me up :ok: :ok:

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 15:17
Sorry Onan, I couldn't resist!!

Jo!

patdavies
14th Feb 2006, 15:51
...and no, I still don't think you should continue if the lights/sirens fail. I would be equally dead and equally unhappy about it were I to be shot by a robber or t-boned by a speeding motorist.


Lights and sirens confer no extra privilege anyway. Certainly not a right of way.


And having read of at least two people ticketed (via camera) for crossing a stop line against a red light, to let an emergency vehicle through - rest assured, I won't be moving like that any time soon.

Crepello
14th Feb 2006, 15:55
You can't win either way Pat... if you do that and I'm in the ambulance, riding upfront with a relative on board, I'll sue your ass for obstruction. ;)

Seriously, if those two cases were upheld in court, the UK's problems are bigger than I thought.

G-CPTN
14th Feb 2006, 17:19
This afternoon I followed a 'Panda' through several junctions, where the Police uniformed driver turned left or right at every junction (never straight on). Not one single direction signal (for my benefit OR the benefit of oncoming traffic). :confused:

SyllogismCheck
14th Feb 2006, 17:28
Cut some slack, G-CPTN. It's hard to indicate whilst juggling steering wheel, mobile phone and a doughnut. :E

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 19:00
Has anyone noticed how everything happens to G CPTN??

You wouldn't have been in a police car being towed by the 'panda' by any chance were you captain?

Hang on a minute, you weren't looking in your mirrors at the time and was actually being chased by the police car were you?? :E :E


I wonder what the next thread will be in which this 'CPTN' will be personally involved in...

Solid Rust Twotter
14th Feb 2006, 19:05
Maybe if you got out a little more things would happen to you too....:E :ok:

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 19:17
SRT, 21 posts so far today??... and you think I need to get out more??

Unfortunately I have Flu virus and have had to go home and this seems an appropriate way of passing the time! Whats your excuse?:ok:


Woops, its 22 now and most quite appropriately on the really really boring and totally pointless snippets of information thread.... How apt!

Solid Rust Twotter
14th Feb 2006, 19:43
Between contracts and bored.....

eal401
14th Feb 2006, 20:24
I do think you may be guilding the lilly somewhat.
You would wouldn't you. Everything I stated, from my behaviour to his behaviour is as happened :rolleyes:
I have never seen 2 vehicles in a position where if the front one touches his brakes, or, allows his vehicle to slow without breaking, then the driver of the rear one could not, if he was looking respond.
So, what you are saying is that it was perfectly and totally acceptable for this police officer to tailgate me in wet driving conditions? You are saying it was completely acceptable for him to drive so close to me that I could not see his headlights or his face in my rear-view mirror? Why am I not surprised?

Let's not forget that he did not continuously tailgate me. He dropped back, then came right up close again, an action that was repeated several times. So, any claims to emergency call surely cannot be true.

therefore, sense says, if its dangerous, pull over. let the danger go past. You are clearly not reading the thread that closely. I have already stated that it was not, in my opinion, safe to do so. No doubt in bjcc's eyes, my opinion won't be good enough.
That means there are times, when you have to respond to make it safe, even though someone else wont/can't/isn't.
I did respond as safely as possible in the circumstances. Again, reading of thread appearing tricky for a certain member.
Had you not been one of the people who attacks police at any opertunity, I may be more inclined to believe you totally.
Yeah right. The criticism being leveled is at a police officer. Chances of you believing anyone in such an incident is remote. Oh, and I do not attack the police for the hell of it, there is always a reason. Sunday's event and your posts in response simply add fuel.

And to clarify once more, I had left the motorway, the policeman began to drive close to my car just after exiting the roundabout.

Send Clowns
14th Feb 2006, 21:50
bjcc

I suggest you read post 13. That is the one I was commenting on, rather than 12 which was written by Grainger.

In post 13 you clearly criticise eal, in asking why he did not pull over. You cannot backpedal now and say you were just offering advice. The mangled grammar of the post serves only to emphasise teh short, critical tone of the post, as does the following point.

You don't criticise the policeman driving in such a dangerous fashion. This would be perfectly acceptable, you might feel that has been covered. Except for two points. First you are so quick here to criticise other people who claim to have any ability to judge the safety of their own driving, and secondly that you have a police background and a tendency always to comment on police issues and to back them instinctively. It can therefore be assumed that you would want to comment on their behaviour in this case, yet you are curiously silent.

Binoculars
15th Feb 2006, 01:00
I don't think he has been silent at all. He has said, and repeated for those who didn't get it the first time, that he agrees that there are some bad drivers in the police force. Seems to me that while bjcc understandably comes to the defence of the police against what can become hysterical criticism, he does it in a very reasoned and moderate way, and some of the complainers could take a leaf out of his book.

Since you, Clowns, are demanding as usual people re-read your posts, there is a "curious silence" from you too in relation to the challenge I issued to you in Post #35. Remember, in response to your Certainly complete garbage, and pompous as well.? I wouldn't normally bother bringing it up, but since your whole method of "debate" is to attack the style of the opponent, question their ability to read and accuse them of failing to answer questions it seems relevant to point out the hypocrisy.

Grainger
15th Feb 2006, 08:49
Bins; I would have thought it's pretty obvious why high-speed chases are relevant to people outside the police force. Because we're likely to get entangled in them whilst driving along minding our own business, that's why !

It was bjcc himself who made the point that non-police drivers should assist in the chase by moving out of the way. He also rightly said that sometimes the nearest officer able to respond may not be the one with the highest driving qualification. Fair enough, how can you expect everyone to understand that rather subtle point if we're also being told that the subject is "not relevant" to us.

bjcc wants it to be relevant when it suits him (eal should have moved out of the way) but not relevant when it doesn't. That is the contradiction SC was pointing out.

And before you leap to bjcc's defence, I'm sure he's thicker-skinned than you give him credit for. I don't see why someone who described another's contribution as "rubbish" should be too offended at the word "garbage".

Send Clowns
15th Feb 2006, 10:42
Binos

Have you actually read post number 13? That was the one I was critical of. Where does it mention poor drivers in the police?

I had missed your post number 35. Strangely enough I do not concentrate my entire attention on PPRuNe, sometimes I am required to fly an aeroplane. Certain special forces in the military/intelligence have legitimate cause to follow other vehicles at high speed, as have customs officers. In foreign countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan then security guards might well need those skills. I'm sure a man of your imagination can work out a few more, remembering that no-one confined the use of these skills to the UK.

Binoculars
15th Feb 2006, 11:46
Have you actually read post number 13?

And here I was thinking you had no sense of humour! Wonderful self-deprecating irony, Clowns. Err, it WAS irony, wasn't it? :hmm:

OK, so you have invoked James Bond and your beloved military. Customs? Hmmm. I pass on that one; I suppose it's vaguely possible that in certain circumstances highly trained Customs drivers may legally indulge in high speed hi-jinks. After that it seems we are reduced to quoting Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh dear.

Yes, I did read post #13. Just to be sure I went back and read it again, and I agree with bjcc entirely. Apart from one situation where a car load of drunken youths were threatening to drive me off the road, I've never been in a situation where to slow down gradually, move off the road and stop would have constituted a dangerous manoeuvre.

It is quite clear to me that Mr.EAL does indeed harbour a large grudge against not only the police but anybody who would curtail his actions on the road in any way. I'm sure, Grainger, that bjcc needs no help from me. I wasn't springing to his defence, just adding my limited intellectual weight to his argument. It's oh so easy to rant and rave anonymously about police; so easy to describe, or even invent anecdotal adventures that suit your own viewpoint. I have had my problems with police over the years, but at the grumpy old fart stage of life I suspect that bjcc is correct in intimating that those who complain loudest and longest would be the same ones who complain loudest and longest when the police are not at their doorstep within three minutes of being called.

Just an observation, you understand. Not a basic truth.

Send Clowns
15th Feb 2006, 12:08
What is wrong with foreign parts? There are a lot of western civilians working out there. Why don't the security services count? They are not police, and that was the only criterion given. What you really meant is that you realise I actually can give examples, so you have to disparage them.

eal has shown no such grudge here. If what he is saying is true then the police were completely in the wrong on this, and far more dangerous than the majority of people breaking the speed limit. bjcc on the other hand has shown an instinct to attack non-police drivers here and in many of his posts. He shows elsewhere a tendency to defend police as an immediate response, and that showed in his lack of criticism of them in his first post here. So why are you criticising eal who did nothing illegal in the scenario described (unlike the police), and defending bjcc?

Binoculars
15th Feb 2006, 12:19
You have indeed managed to quote examples, of something. I will keep in mind that next time you are discussing situations in the UK, perhaps Europe, perhaps even all of western civilsation, the specious introduction of what happens in Upper Volta or Kurdistan is an acceptable debating tactic.

Mr. eal is simply reaping the harvest of his many attacks on the road rules as he perceives them pertaining to him. This particular thread is not even necessarily included in that, but if he has exhibited a grudge in the past, that is relevant to the attacking position he takes in this thread. It may to the suspicious among us even, without suggesting this to be fact, raise questions about If what he is saying is true. Another hypothetical, you understand.

I answered, or debunked, your final question in my previous post.

patdavies
15th Feb 2006, 13:31
You can't win either way Pat... if you do that and I'm in the ambulance, riding upfront with a relative on board, I'll sue your ass for obstruction. ;)
Seriously, if those two cases were upheld in court, the UK's problems are bigger than I thought.

Sorry? Sued for obstruction for obeying the law - don't think any court would allow that to go very far. There is no obligation in English law to move out of the way of a vehicle on blues'n'twos


These cases, along with most camera detected offences, rarely do go to court. A picture is taken, a form is sent to the registered keeper (or driver) to self-incrimnate him/herself and the cheery offer of a fine and points follows. It takes a lot of nerve to buck this automated system and force a court case.

Nail The Dream
16th Feb 2006, 12:43
eal401,

Sorry for this slight thread hijack, but it's topical in view of some other comments here - perhaps the person who was chasing you was this guy :
Policeman faces motoring charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4709664.stm)

... and I bet there's a heck of a lot more to that story :suspect:

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 12:53
Shirley there's shum mishtake . . .

Send Clowns
16th Feb 2006, 12:54
Binos

No-one specified that the work was in the UK. The point was that the training was in the UK. I was not the one claiming that the training was done, i have no idea whether it is or not, I was pointing out that bjcc's sweeping statement was absolute, without justification.

Why should eal be forced off the road by bullying police driving illegally?

Onan the Clumsy
16th Feb 2006, 16:52
EAL I've got it, I know why it happened...

If you head westbound on the M55, get off at Kirkham and turn right, what do you see next? That's right....


The Blue Anchor


It all makes sense now.

:} :} :} :}

eal401
16th Feb 2006, 19:48
Mr. eal is simply reaping the harvest of his many attacks on the road rules as he perceives them pertaining to him.
Hmm. My memory is a bit iffy. Perhaps you could provide some evidence of this.

Maybe you'd like to refer back to the many criticisms of speed cameras I have made due to the fact that they do NOTHING TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY. (As anyone who drives around with their eyes open will know) The criticisms about speed cameras because they are considered the be all and end all of road safety, yet no-one concerns themselves with the myriad of other dangerous actions that put people's lives at risk on the road. Or perhaps you'd like to refer back to the thread I once started concerning the dangers of road junctions designs and the apparant lack of concern from those in charge, despite further accidents occuring as a result.

Or maybe you'd just like to refer back to the posts here where I stated how my reactions to a dangerous driver was to take the best mitigating action open to me whilst remaining firmly within the UK Highway Code.

I await your reply with extreme interest.

Widger
17th Feb 2006, 08:43
Saw a copper in a BMW the other day, pulled over with his lblues on. As I waited at some lights, his lights went off and he then preceeded to race up the road (30mph limit) at about 50mph during school chucking out time! If I had got his number I would have written a complaint.
Saw another ***** in a police BMW with lights flashing, shoot around a well known particularly nasty bend on a dual carriageway. As we all came round the corner, there was a civilian woman standing in the road next to her car, frantically waving traffic into the outside lane. A little further on, said copper had lost control on the bend, was facing the wrong way and had hit the bank backwards. The WPC in the passenger seat looked quite distressed and was obviously cursing her driver!
I usually find that the best cure for tailgaters is to ensure before every trip that your windscreen washers are topped up. When said idiot tailgates, just put the washers on and keep them on. Sods law will say that white van man has not topped his washers up, will have no water and will rapidly back off! Winds them up a treat! It obviously does not work in the rain. Quick dab of the rear fog lights tends to work as well!

Krystal n chips
17th Feb 2006, 09:26
. Sods law will say that white van man has not topped his washers up, will have no water

I beg to differ here---maybe something to do with my background of course :}



Winds them up a treat! Quick dab of the rear fog lights tends to work as well!

Thank you for that little insight concerning your interpretation of defensive driving and a sweeping generalisation ! :mad:

Widger
17th Feb 2006, 09:46
Oooh, you're a little bit touchy today! You should try the washers on, works a treat although not with lorries...too high!


Thinking of marketing a system, where a fine mist of black oil is sprayed out of the rear washer! Could be a good use of all that surplus oil that is taken to the household re-cycling centres! A boot full of tacks could work also!

eal401
17th Feb 2006, 09:56
Actually Widger, misadjusting your washers is not recommended as I believe you could get into trouble if seen by someone in authority.

Obviously the tailgater would be ignored in such circumstances.

eal401
18th Feb 2006, 08:59
I await your reply with extreme interest.
Still waiting......

:rolleyes:

jammydonut
18th Feb 2006, 09:40
Interestingly on a post a few pages back that the M23 spur road to Gatwick was mentioned. Last year a luckless woman was killed and family severely injured by police car ignoring red traffic light - from memory, I think the police driver was exonerated:cool:

eal401
18th Feb 2006, 10:12
police car ignoring red traffic light
And with no blues and twos if I recall correctly. Very little reported on that one.

Tony Flynn
18th Feb 2006, 11:16
EAL I've got it, I know why it happened...
If you head westbound on the M55, get off at Kirkham and turn right, what do you see next? That's right....
The Blue Anchor
It all makes sense now.
:} :} :} :}
Is that constabulary rhyming slang?

Jo Cover
18th Feb 2006, 12:10
Widger.

''Saw another ***** in a police BMW with lights flashing, shoot around a well known particularly nasty bend on a dual carriageway. As we all came round the corner, there was a civilian woman standing in the road next to her car, frantically waving traffic into the outside lane. A little further on, said copper had lost control on the bend, was facing the wrong way and had hit the bank backwards. The WPC in the passenger seat looked quite distressed and was obviously cursing her driver!''


Did you witness the incident?? How do you know the police driver lost control and wasn't struck by another vehicle, swerved out of the way to avoid a runaway child in the middle of the road or had a mechanical or tyre failure? How do you know that the passenger was obviously cursing the driver?

Can you tell me the winning lottery numbers for this evening please?

DG101
18th Feb 2006, 12:19
A luckless woman was killed ... I think the police driver was exonerated

From the BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4245352.stm)

"The trial date for :mad: is still to be set."

Binoculars
18th Feb 2006, 12:20
I await your reply with extreme interest.
Still waiting......


For what? You expect me to spend hours searching Pprune to find instances where you have vented your spleen on all matters concerning road safety? That would imply that justifying my position to you matters to me.

I'm not the only one to have commented on your general attitude on these matters, even on this thread. One of the disadvantages of being consistently outspoken on a particular matter is that you are forever identified with that position. If the cap fits......

jammydonut
18th Feb 2006, 12:27
DG101

I stand corrected....but 6 months later and no trial seems suspect:*

DG101
18th Feb 2006, 13:00
jammydonut

Yes, it looks like heels are being dragged. But I don't think the PC has been exonerated just yet. The IPCC were probably busy with other matters in 2005.

Onan the Clumsy
18th Feb 2006, 13:35
Did you witness the incident?? How do you know the police driver lost control and wasn't struck by another vehicle, swerved out of the way to avoid a runaway child in the middle of the road or had a mechanical or tyre failure? I thought the definition of "safe driving" was to be able to react to any situation without losing control of the vehicle.


How do you know that the passenger was obviously cursing the driver? Are you kidding? He said it was a WPC in the passenger seat. If my experience is anything to go by, she was probably cursing the driver from the moment they set off. :}

Jo Cover
18th Feb 2006, 21:08
Onan, Onan, Onan................

eal401
19th Feb 2006, 09:38
That would imply that justifying my position to you matters to me.
So, you can make unfounded comments at me and then not back them up.

My, my, you are all gob and no guts. :yuk:

Jerricho
19th Feb 2006, 09:56
Unlike Binos, I'm sitting here on a night shift with not much going on..............
One (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209054)
Two (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=202453)
Three (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=199490)
Four (various) (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=199941)
I LIke this one (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2165578#post2165578)
A couple in this one (you and your mate bjcc really love each other deep down, don't you) (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=192371)
An open admission (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1831434#post1831434)

What ever happened to your comment from April 7, 2005

I'll just shrug my shoulders and not give a sh*t in future.

Bah, bored now.:zzz: :zzz:

Onan the Clumsy
19th Feb 2006, 14:44
Bah?......



or Baa?



:E

G-CPTN
19th Feb 2006, 15:36
Are you the Steward?

BUMPFF
19th Feb 2006, 15:58
'Private Eye' (17 Feb issue) have it thus from Neasden Central Police Station (Office hours 9-12 Mon-Tues [except Tuesday]):

"PC Blenkinsop reported in after test driving a police vehicle the wrong way round the North Circular between Exit 10 (Ballsover) and Exit 12 (World of Fences). He reported having achieved a speed of 159 mph, thus breaking the station record held by the late PC Forsyth (146 mph). Blenkinsop incurred only 3 civilian casuaties during his five-minute drive and has been recommended for promotion."

Seriously, whenever the mobile law is on your tail, blue-light run or not, slow down, pull over and let them get on with their job. We can't possibly know what they have to do.

Jerricho
19th Feb 2006, 16:21
Don't call me Stewart.

Widger
20th Feb 2006, 12:49
Sorry to revive this thread but, I could not let the question go un-answered.Jo Cover, Whilst I did not see the impact (which was 20yds to the right of the bend) I did see the Police BMW (rear wheel drive), going round the corner (everyone knows it is tight, with a reverse left hander) far too fast with no other cars in front. He was followed by little old lady who came across the accident and jumped out of her car, closely followed about 20 seconds later by the stream of traffic (including me) held by the traffic lights. He quite clearly coc**d up by losing the back end, spinning it around and impacting the bank thereby hurting his WPC!As to the other copper doiong at least 50 in a 30 with no sirens or lights (same force) yes I did see that and my wife has seen many other examples of poor driving from people who should be giving a better example.It always seems to be those driving the BMWs for some reason!

eal401
21st Feb 2006, 07:29
What ever happened to your comment from April 7, 2005
I guess I can't "not give a sh*t" about road safety! Especially when the likes of Binos, bjcc etc. not only prove time and again that they certainly don't but also actively condone and defend dangerous driving behaviour.

Jo Cover
21st Feb 2006, 10:33
Widger, the fact still remains that you DID NOT see what happened. Now how about those lottery numbers??






Oh and 20 seconds to travel 20 yards? You need a new car old mate!

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 10:36
Jo

Read carefully what you respond to! You have proved by your fascetious comment that you based your last post entirely on a misunderstanding of what eal401 had written.

Jo Cover
21st Feb 2006, 10:45
Send clowns, The word you were looking for is Facetious......

There is a hint on whom my comments were directed at hence my post started with the name..... Widger!!


Maybe you are the one whom should read first then engage brain and fingers after digesting the information which is clearly available.

Maybe you don't understand, not every post on this thread actually relates directly to EAl's original post....


Watch and learn... watch and learn!!

:ok: :ok: :ok:

panda-k-bear
21st Feb 2006, 10:58
Good grief - what is it with you lot! Why do you all enjoy deliberately misunderstanding each other's points so much?!

eal401 sounds like he was put in a bit of a dangerous situation. We don't know if he could have pulled over safely or not but why should we doubt him?

bjcc admits there are bad drivers in the police much as there are elsehwere in life.

End of discussion, surely?

If a rear wheel drive car passes me at a crazy speed, police or no police, if I then come across that car a few seconds later on a bad blind bend facing backwards out of a hedge, well it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened, does it? Most of us here have brains and most of us well understand the laws of physics. A lot of us are engineers and so could demonstrate a very good knowledge about coefficient of friction, probability and so on, thus being able to explain how the back end of a BMW is likely to break away at a high speed given a certain set of conditions.

Cripes - get over it! :hmm:

Oh, and if we're going to be a berk about spelling perhaps we should try not to make mistakes like "origional", don't you think? Pot and kettle; greenhouses and stones.

Jo Cover
21st Feb 2006, 11:28
Panda...... mmm must be a cop.... do you have the lottery numbers too??


''If a rear wheel drive car passes me at a crazy speed, police or no police, if I then come across that car a few seconds later on a bad blind bend facing backwards out of a hedge, well it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened, does it? Most of us here have brains and most of us well understand the laws of physics. A lot of us are engineers and so could demonstrate a very good knowledge about coefficient of friction, probability and so on, thus being able to explain how the back end of a BMW is likely to break away at a high speed given a certain set of conditions.''

So you know there wasn't mechanical failure in this instance? You know the critical speed for the curve do you? You know the exact speed the BMW was being driven at do you?

We are all to ready to knock the old bill but lets do it when we have facts not supposition!





I wish I could see into the future!!

SyllogismCheck
21st Feb 2006, 12:04
Mechanical failures - Even including tyre failure mechanical failures causing loss of control of a vehicle are vastly less common then driver error causing loss of control. Even less common, one would imagine, on a very well maintained police vehicle.

Critical speed - Foolish to enter a bend on a public road at a speed likely to become critical should you need to lift off the throttle. That's inapropriate speed.

From a previous post....

Struck by another vehicle - Let's ask Widger. Was there debris on the carriageway? Any sign of another damaged vehicle?

Child running out into the road - Even in the presence of ABS, the vehicle will tend toward a front brake bias leaving less capacity for directional control on those tyres. Effect, the car goes straight on rather than spinning. It's designed in. In the event of loss of control even before application of the brakes or due to the need to swerve, see critical speed comment above.

I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to accept that this may well have been instance of inappropriate and excessive speed, Jo Cover. It has little to do with supposition. All that we're told points to it. It is, afterall, very hard to chuck away a modern car equipped with stability control, as virtually all larger engined (those the police use) BMWs have been for some years now. In fact one of the very few things that will cause them to end up suddenly going backwards at high speed is exceeding, by a very large margin, the physical abilities of the vehicle. In short, you have to be pretty careless or going considerably too fast to allow for possible eventualities, even sudden ones.

G-CPTN
21st Feb 2006, 12:11
But all CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, and prolly not sufficient to convict 'beyond all possible doubt'.
Still think the Fuzz was going too fast tho' :ok:


Such an incident (don't call them 'accidents'), if causing significant injury or damage, would be investigated by the appropriate division of the service. The vehicle would be inspected for mechanical defects, the road examined for skid marks, calculations made according to the trajectory, amount of damage etc etc. This would apply equally to a civilian incident (as well as the driver being breathalysed). Eventually, the Police would have a pretty good indication whether the driver was overstepping the mark, or whether freak conditions might apply. There have been several incidents where the road surface has recently been renewed, using a technique where the aggregate is embedded in the 'tar', leaving the surface of the road covered in an oily film, which, when damp, results in an extremely low coefficient of friction.

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 12:11
Jo Cover

If you were here often you would realise that I am perfectly happy to accept that my spelling is not very good. I have worked hard on it, but I still spell some uncommon words incorrectly. I am willing to admit this and any other errors I can be shown to have made, such as saying eal when I should have said Widger.

Have you admitted yet that you completely misinterpreted what Widger was talking about when he mentioned 20 yards? Or do you think my slips, which do not change the intent in any way at all, are more important than your complete misunderstanding of the situation?

Widger
21st Feb 2006, 12:16
Jo Cover,I was there...I know what I saw and what I came across...the pillock lost it on the bend and was very lucky not to get hit by the cars that followed.4...8...15...16...23...42There you go. Feel free to use them this Wednesday!

panda-k-bear
21st Feb 2006, 12:21
Joe-90 or whatever you're called (oh, did I not bother to read your name? Oh, not reading? Hmmm).

Set yourself up for that one, didn't you?

Do you concede he might have been going too fast?

Or is that an impossibility?

Straight questions. Straight answer, please.

You say: "We are all to ready to knock the old bill"
You also quoted me when I said: "police or no police"

And no, I don't know those things. However, if I was at the scene I could work them out. Could you? No I don't know it wasn't mechanical failure but I could calculate the probability. Could you?

And as for the lottery numbers - yes I do and I'm not sharing them with you!

Get over yourself!:p

Curious Pax
21st Feb 2006, 12:28
:rolleyes: Wake up guys - it's obvious. Jo Cover was the guy driving the BMW that Widger saw. QED.

Jo Cover
21st Feb 2006, 22:45
WOW... at last, someone else agrees that there is doubt!!

Would you all be chanting exactly the same if you were in the same position as the 'police' driver, driving your own car home from work or where ever you had been? I think we all know the answer to that one!

Would you have said 'I was driving too fast for the conditions and I lost control because I ....... Insert your excuse here.....' Again I don't think so.

Without all the facts, you can't make a decision as to who or what was at fault in these circumstances.

Panda, try taking a little more water with it. It might clear your head a little. And, there is a clue in the name...:ok: :ok:

Widger, you, by your own admission DID NOT see what happened. You can not pass judgement on the driver if you didn't witness the accident. If you didn't witness it, you, like the rest of us are all guessing!! Should the law be changed to 'include beyond all reasonable doubt or what someone else guesses might have happened?'

Put yourself in the 'police drivers' position before you pass judgement on an incident, for which you, clearly, did not witness the whole of the event.

SyllogismCheck, your lack knowledge of the laws of physics casts a shadow of doubt on the rest of your post. Are you QTPAC? AIO? VE EX?Does there have to be debris on the road to indicate a collision has occurred?

Widger, I suggest that you are the pillock because you are NOT in possession of all the facts. I am not in possession of all the facts, thats why I am looking at the situation with an open mind.

Send Clowns... Oh Bless. :E :E


Look further than the end of your egos. We are all human. Humans make mistakes.

SyllogismCheck
21st Feb 2006, 23:33
There does tend to be debris as well as perhaps water and oil on the road after a collision. Bits tend to get ripped off cars when they hit each other at speed and make a bit of a mess you know. Or do the police carry brooms in their vehicles in order clean up the 'station when they get back there?

Which bit of the physics, not that I talked physics but if you wish to call it that, do you dispute? If you stand on the brakes in your car then turn the wheel will it spin or plough straight on? If it tries to spin, I suggest you return it to dealer to be inspected. If it's the bit about stability control you question, then perhaps you've never tried it out properly. Even when you're trying to catch it out it's hard to do so.

I've no idea what any of those acronyms are. So, no, I doubt I am.

I'll say one thing though. You are indeed a joke, over.

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 23:33
Widger, you, by your own admission DID NOT see what happened. You can not pass judgement on the driver if you didn't witness the accident.I am sorry, but that is garbage. If the car crashed and there was no other vehicle involved (which might be judged pretty confidantly without seeing the accident) then the blame can be attributed to the driver vehicle that crashed! Had you read Widger's post you would realise that the car crashed 20 yards around the corner out of sight (not round a corner 20 yards further than Widger's position, the rather important distinction I was previously trying to get you to understand when you could only see my trivial errors) then I would suggest that he is in a fairly good position to judge.

chiglet
21st Feb 2006, 23:54
Going back to the original thread.......
Eal indicated at the 3bar marking.......If he was doing 70mph on the Motorway....IMMHO, there was "reasonable" room for the Police vehicle to overtake. Again, eal was in the correct lane on the exit slip.....again room to under/overtake. Roundabout......room to overtake.
Before any shouts, yes I do know the area, but do not know the vans' "Agenda"
watp,iktch

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 00:35
After speaking to my g/f, a Surrey PC, the police have various alert settings they are allowed to use in their vehicles dependant on the proven severity of the crime, for eg. terrorist attack, blues, wails etc, a minor assault just lights etc etc., and even some situations that no alert signals are allowed, but they rely on the COMMON SENSE OF THE PUBLIC.

An officer may be put in the situation that he is unable to utilise any warning signals but still must make haste to a scene.

Any member of public with common sense (and no arrogant state of self importance) would get out out any police vehicles way that demostrated a need to pass.

Taking it further, if you are being tailgated, pull over anyway! Let them pass, you are only fuelling the situation, a road rage situation normally requires two hot heads.

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 00:39
So tailgating, as was mentioned in the original post, doesn't constitute dangerous driving when done by a police driver? It's a 'demonstration of a need to pass'. Interesting.

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 00:48
So tailgating, as was mentioned in the original post, doesn't constitute dangerous driving when done by a police driver? It's a 'demonstration of a need to pass'. Interesting.

The dangers of tailgating is based on stopping distances published 30-40 years ago. Personally, if an official emergency vehicle is close behind me, with its intentions clearly based on passing, i would have the common sense to pull over and let it pass.

To quote SyllogismCheck, too much bloody mindedness. :*

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 02:04
So not only is tailgating not a danger when done by a police vehicle, it also denotes a legitimate indicator of an intention to pass (even though it compromises the safety of actually doing so) and is not subject to the same driver reaction times and inferior van vs car braking ratios as any other form of the same dangerous practice carried out by anyone else. Jolly good.

By the way, I too would let him pass if safe to do so. If he did and then pulled into the petrol station I'd very likely pull in behind him and, assuming no emergency was being attended, ask what he thought he was up to. :E

Jo Cover
22nd Feb 2006, 06:23
''There does tend to be debris as well as perhaps water and oil on the road after a collision. Bits tend to get ripped off cars when they hit each other at speed and make a bit of a mess you know. Or do the police carry brooms in their vehicles in order clean up the 'station when they get back there?''

Well one could have expected such a reply. Your statement clearly states your lack of knowledge on the subject matter. You have been watching too many films. The techniques taught to the police and other 'services' are to nudge the rear of a car, in the right place, on the car as well as on the road, bends are the best, with a view to spin the vehicle off the road. It can and does, usually result in only a small exchange of paint between vehicles and there isn't debris scattered as the Hollywood hype suggests. Funnily enough, it is possible and often occurrs whereby a civilian driver does something daft on seing police vehicles and the 'nudge' resultant is the same as the 'nudge' taught to some traffic officers. As I previously stated, If you didn't see what caused the vehicle to leave the road, you are purely guessing as to what you would like to be the cause. You clearly have a dislike for the police and feel the need to display this at every opportunity that arises. I however have the ability to look at the wider picture, you tend to see more of the facts and let a little less of the emotions cloud your judgement.

QTPAC, Qualified Tactical Persuit and Containment. AIO, Accident Investigation Officer, Ve Ex, Vehicle Examiner. Adv class 1, class 1 advanced driver and motorcyclist. Some of the posters might have these qualifications to back up their comments. Others just think they know best.

Look at the whole of the posts. Remove the 'Police' factor and as I stated previously, there wouldnt be the sanctimonious posts such as yours on here.

I totally agree that the van driving agressively in the first instance, wasn't driving as per Roadcraft. I would reccommend pulling over to let such a vehicle past at the earliest opportunity.

Oh and at last you get the name, Joke Over!! Well done, well done!!:ok: :ok:

Maybe that should be Jo Cover, ADV class 1, TPAC, AIO, Ve EX.:ok: :ok: :ok:

Grainger
22nd Feb 2006, 09:25
What, are we all politicians on this thread ? Don't bother answering the question, just repeat your own point of view over and over ?

EAL stated very clearly in post #28 that it was not safe to pull over.

Why, after seven pages, are people [JC, FL69] still saying "pull over and let him pass" ? We all got it first time as a piece of general advice, but EAL told us that in his situation it wasn't safe to do so, so what is to be gained by simply repeating it over and over ?

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 10:29
You really are a joker, aren't you!The techniques taught to the police and other 'services' are to nudge the rear of a car, in the right place, on the car as well as on the road, bends are the best, with a view to spin the vehicle off the road. It can and does, usually result in only a small exchange of paint between vehicles and there isn't debris scattered as the Hollywood hype suggests. We're not talking about tactical driving. And you call it a nudge? A nudge, when the car entered the bend at an estimated 50mph in a 30mph limit? That to me suggests that there would be a speed differential in the region of 20mph. No debris after such an impact? A 20mph impact may well write a car off and would certainly leave it airbags deployed and undriveable!
It's beside the point anyway. We're told that there was no other car involved. He left the road under his own steam, was not knocked off it.

Finally, and as I stated earlier, I have no dislike for the police and generally rate their driving standards. That doesn't preclude them from stuffing it up however. I've seen it happen, in full view, right in front of me. Unless of course it was a tactical move he was practicing when he drove off the road and totalled his month old patrol car, in which case he was of course in the right.
From what we're told, and unfortunately for him, the driver of the BMW in question appears to have fouled up. It happens.

panda-k-bear
22nd Feb 2006, 11:27
Grainger,

I think you have to put it in big letters.

EAL SAID IT WAS NOT SAFE TO PULL OVER

Don't keep saying he should have pulled over

It wasn't safe

Get it now?

Jo Cover
22nd Feb 2006, 11:31
Syllo... if you don't look at all of my last post, you wont see all of the picture. Cutting and pasting to make the post look different from the form in which it was posted is childish. You have chosen to do this. Your lack of knowledge of the facts are becoming clearer and clearer and you are now making stories up to suit your own impression of what happened.

Never mind, one day you will get to look at the big picture, not your small minded view of your work if fiction.

panda-k-bear
22nd Feb 2006, 11:59
Hmm, the joke really is over, isn't it? Or wearing thin, at least.

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 12:07
How did I make it look different. You suggested that a 'nudge' could be performed with minimal damage. I don't dispute that. Presumably, however, it'd be done with a fairly small speed differential between the two vehicles. Not the likely 20mph differential that'd be present between a vehicle travelling at 50mph encountering another unexpectedly (although good sense would tell most people to expect to encounter other vehicles on the road) travelling at or around the 30mph speed limit in force.
You were comparing two different things and attempting to make that comaprison hold water in this discussion, which it does not. I simply pointed that out.

What story did I make up? I don't believe it's common practice in the UK for police drivers to attempt to 'nudge' vehicles they come across in their path when responding at speed to a call off the road. Consequently, it seems likely that our BMW driver was taking action to avoid an impact. Avoiding action which he was unable to complete successfully thus ending up in the bank.
Ideally, should he not have been able to avoid having an accident? Have been travelling at less speed so as that he may have slowed sufficiently in order to safely avoid vehicles which he entirely predictably encountered as he rounded the bend, and done so without losing control or running out of road?

Of course I don't know the facts. I wasn't there. Neither were you. We're both going by what we're told. I'm prepared to acknowledge that he may have got it wrong. You're inclined to dismiss the possibility out of hand. Who has their mind more open?

I'm not suggesting there were no unfortunate factors which began the process which led to him having his accident. You seem to think it must have been caused soley by such factors when perhaps, had he slowed by 10mph before the bend, it may have been entirely avoidable.

It's all well and good and completely understandable for a police driver to need to get somewhere fast. But, to get there fast, first he has to get there. In this instance, the driver failed. That's a fact. Where's the fiction?

Assuming that your claimed credentials actually exist and are not also a joke, I find it concerning that you're so unprepared to consider various possibilities. It smacks of a false sense of infallibility to me. A similar sense, perhaps, to that which led our BMW driving policeman to encounter a situation he was unable to resolve successfully. Dangerous, since all the taught skills, which police drivers no doubt posses, and credentials in the world won't guard against blind arrogant presumption should it occur.

frostbite
22nd Feb 2006, 12:17
Too many people do the 'pull over' bit without thought - you should make it as easy as possible for them to pass, whatever that entails, NOT simply stand on the brakes as so many do.

Jo Cover
22nd Feb 2006, 12:46
Syllo.

I have more important things to do than play your silly games. You still want to be judge and jury, eventhough you don't have all the facts. Thats your choice. You can guess as much as you like. If you are not in possession of all the facts, you can not make an accurate assessment of what has happened.

I have an open mind. I will continue to meet each challenge I face in life with this asset.

I won't be responding to any further posts in this thread.:ok:

UniFoxOs
22nd Feb 2006, 14:15
Welll that's a relief!

cosworth211
22nd Feb 2006, 17:23
I personally have found very few roads where I cannot take some sort of action to assist a vehicle in passing me who wants/needs to.

eal401
22nd Feb 2006, 19:39
with its intentions clearly based on passing
Which wasn't the case here.

As stated quite a long time ago, the vehicle in question tailgated severely, backed off, then came up close again a number of times.

cosworth211
22nd Feb 2006, 20:04
Which to me, would indicate that it wanted to pass????

bjcc
22nd Feb 2006, 20:27
To return to the original point, was this the A585 Southbound?

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 20:50
A flash of the headlights is the generally recognised standard international signal for 'Get the **** outta the way!' is it not though, Cossie. Why wouldn't he have done that if he urgently needed to pass?


Jo Cover, Ok.

cosworth211
22nd Feb 2006, 20:56
Because the highway code states that this action merely means "I am here", not "get the **** out of my way" ;)
Reading back FL69 gives an explanation on the procedures police have to adhere to when travelling to a scene of a crime, and it seems they cannot always indicate their intentions through light/aural signals.

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 21:03
I'd have thought that The Highway Code would be much more highly in favour of saying 'I'm here' with an undertone of 'Get the **** outta my way!' than it would of tailgating. The latter is inherently dangerous the former entirely benign. No contest as to which is the smarter move surely.

eal401
23rd Feb 2006, 06:35
To return to the original point, was this the A585 Southbound?
No, northbound. From J3 on the M55 until he turned into a Texaco garage somewhere just after Little Singleton.
Which to me, would indicate that it wanted to pass????
Why? The actions quoted seemed to have little connection to the road at the time, i.e. tailgating on bends, backing off on straights etc.

bjcc
23rd Feb 2006, 07:34
EAL401

Thank you. So you mean the A585 Northbound then (that being the only road that runs off the M55 at J3)


You say you were followed in this maner for 3 miles. You also say that the maner the van was being driven was dangerous, and that it would not have been safe to pull over.

Have a look at Google Earth. It has high definition photos of that road.

I said earlier in this, I believed you were guilding the lilly. I stand by that, and now, having looked at the road, even more so.

There are plenty of places in the first 3 miles you could have pulled over, and could have done so perfectly safely. So why did you not use them? Afterall you say that he put yours, and your wifes lives in danger.

Irrespective of it being a police vehicle, that would be the sensible thing to do wouldn't it? Thus removing the danger to you and your wife.

You now say that he backed off on the straights, so, you could have safely slowed and pulled over.

By the way, I was tailgated the other day, country road. and lots of bends. I slowed down to around 10 mph, and finally he got the hint and backed off. You see it works!

Perhaps you should make a complaint to Lancs Pol, it would be much more productive than going on about it on here.

UniFoxOs
23rd Feb 2006, 09:42
EAL401
By the way, I was tailgated the other day, country road. and lots of bends. I slowed down to around 10 mph, and finally he got the hint and backed off. You see it works!


Try this with a plod and you will be booked for obstructing the police.

bjcc
23rd Feb 2006, 10:35
UniFoxOs

Could you point to where the evidence of obstructing Police is please?

Or is that just an assumption?

UniFoxOs
23rd Feb 2006, 11:13
"I slowed down to 10 mph and he finally got the hint and backed off" - he obviously couldn't get past so if he had been police you were obviously obstructing him.

patdavies
23rd Feb 2006, 12:26
"I slowed down to 10 mph and he finally got the hint and backed off" - he obviously couldn't get past so if he had been police you were obviously obstructing him.


Absolutely not. As the vehicle behind bjcc was so close, he merely slowed to a safe speed for that degree of closeness. This is not obstrcuting plod, this is defensive driving.

I've done exactly the same with some ********** in a white van. he got the message and backed off.

UniFoxOs
23rd Feb 2006, 13:18
Pat, I'm not saying it is obstructing plod, just that plod will make it out to be that. Remember that plod are so convinced that they are right in motoring matters that they will always insist on having the last word, and that usually means booking somebody.

BTW if I spot a jam sandwich anywhere behind me in a restricted area, I normally come down to about 22mph, the theory being that this will produce max increase in his blood pressure while incurring minimum chance of any penalty for me.

Cheers
UFO

PS - did you ever work for cfm?

Widger
23rd Feb 2006, 15:42
4...8...15...16...23...42..There you go............................I am very surprised no-one has commented on the significance of the lottery numbers! Shame on you.Whilst we are slating a certain community I will recount a tale of when I used to work in a pub. The pub was regularly frequented by local (on duty) plod. I remember one night quite clearly when plod offered me a lift home in the panda. On the way back, he deliberately tailgated two cars and when they pulled over, he accelerated past and shouted obscenities at them. He droppped me off outside my home and then wheelspinned away up the road. Same station used to come in the pub when we had a BBQ as well. I remember once when I was asked to fill up the blue lamp with Guinness. During the middle of the BBQ, they got a callout and off they went, up the gravel path wheels spinning away and lights flashing. Hardly surprising I have so little respect these days!

G-CPTN
23rd Feb 2006, 16:27
From http://www.lupercalia.net/quotes/black-humor/fortune_contents
4: If you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't be a cop.

SyllogismCheck
23rd Feb 2006, 16:43
some ********** in a white van. Which takes us right back to where eal401 began. :hmm:

Jerricho
23rd Feb 2006, 17:03
Christ, is this still going :rolleyes:

Grainger
23rd Feb 2006, 17:41
's OK Widge, the significance of the numbers isn't Lost on me . . .

eal401
24th Feb 2006, 06:18
OK bjcc, clearly I'm going to have to speak clearly and slowly for your benefit. You clearly cannot be bothered to read all of what I have put.

Basing your opinion on Google Earth? How about actually knowing the area? The A585 at the point this occured is the main road running from the M55 to the North Fylde, i.e. Thornton-Cleveleys, Fleetwood etc. It was a Sunday afternoon and, hey, guess what? The traffic in both directions was pretty busy!

I say it again.

This police officer drove close enough for me to be unable to see the headlights of his vehicle in my rear view mirror. In rainy conditions.

Now for the slow, clear bit.

I Slowed Down And Left Plenty Of Stopping Space Between Myself And The Vehicle In Front As It Was The Safest Thing To Do Under The Circumstances.

Why, when it is perhaps not easy to do something else should I be bullied out of the way, just because he has a uniform? He clearly did not want to pass, else he would have tailed me solidly for the more than three miles this occured over. And there is no way I would play the "slowing to 10mph" game with any one, that is nothing more than encouraging road rage and not a sensible course of action. And I am sorry, but yes I most certainly would expect to get pulled over of I drove at that speed in front of a police officer for any length of time.

Of course, I guess you are just disappointed that he didn't cause an accident and kill member(s) of the public thus gaining entry to the bjcc Heroes Hall of Fame.

Tell me, what does a police officer have to do to gain condemnation from you? Kill one of your family? You'd probably still side with the police even then.

patdavies
24th Feb 2006, 13:15
PS - did you ever work for cfm?


Yes, many years ago at Head Office and then in the north

UniFoxOs
27th Feb 2006, 20:05
Pat,

Check your PMs.

UFO

Krystal n chips
28th Feb 2006, 07:27
It must be something in the water ! . I had the "pleasure" of not only surviving the speed camera Valhalla that is prevalent in the Preston area--and for readers who don't know the area it really is saturated with the things--as well as travelling back from Fleetwood on Friday on said road. So I had a look and to be honest--this is for bjcc btw---the options to pull over etc are non-existent. It is a very busy road, irrespective of the time / day.

However, prior to my excursion along it, I was parked in a lay by--not a million miles from the force HQ on the A59 heading out of Preston--and lo and behold a car pulls in behind me--fair enough---the driver gets out, wanders around the back of my vehicle---doesn't speak--gets back in the car and duly legs it. No prizes for guessing which organisation he worked for.
Now as all my vehicle details would surely have been checked and found satis within his car, what was the rationale behind this little excercise I wonder ?. Not even a "good afternoon" or "hello".

I may have the misfortune to be back in the area again tomorrow--:{

eal401
1st Mar 2006, 06:14
I may have the misfortune to be back in the area again tomorrow
Good luck!

What line of employment are you in? I only ask because in the possibly unlikely event of you being a bus driver, taxi driver, local council vehicle driver, lorry driver for the bitumen plant on the docks and of course a police driver, you will have full exemption from all speed limits! All these parties happily ignore the little round signs with numbers in with no apparant ill health.

bjcc
1st Mar 2006, 06:42
eal401

And had you been pulled over, you could have explained your concerns.

You say:

"Why, when it is perhaps not easy to do something else should I be bullied out of the way, just because he has a uniform? "

So? Your concerns was not of beening in danger at all, it was that you did not want to 'bow down to a bully'?


I ask you again, why did you not pull over or slow down? You have not answered except to say you would not wish to bow down to a bully? Hardly the satety concerned person you claim to be is it.

And finally, stop throwing stones. Have I come down on the side of the police? No. I have said I think you are over egging it.

Send Clowns
1st Mar 2006, 09:30
I hope you were never a detective, bjcc!I Slowed DownSo I had a look and to be honest--this is for bjcc btw---the options to pull over etc are non-existentI ask you again, why did you not pull over or slow downAnd how about checking his first post in this thread against this comment:Have I come down on the side of the police?Mmmmmm, now the police do something dangerous, by all appearances trying to bully a member of the public and thus endangering him. bjcc's first reaction is that the member of the public the police are endangering should have done something about it. Now, can we get a hint from that of whose side bjcc is on every time, right or wrong? It is difficult detective work, but I don't think it is impossible.

Grainger
1st Mar 2006, 10:53
He also missed posts 127 and 129 to mention a few.

For someone who seems to think we deserve to be punished for missing a single traffic sign, how come even a post in big red letters seems to have gone unnoticed ?

eal401
1st Mar 2006, 12:15
And had you been pulled over, you could have explained your concerns.
How is life in Cloud Cuckoo land?
why did you not pull over or slow down?
Jesus, you do have a problem with reading don't you? Why don't you go back through this thread and count the number of times that not only did I state that I slowed down, but also asked you why this was not an acceptable course of action in your opinion?
That really is staggeringly selective reading you employ!!
Have I come down on the side of the police?
Categorically, yes. Try looking at what you have written. Not once have you said anything against a police officer severely tailgating a car on a wet road. But you have had many criticisms about my driving which was a) within the speed limit, b) appropriate for the road conditions, c) with plenty of stopping distance from the car in front, d) employing indicators as appropriate and e) obeying all other published rules in the Highway Code applicable.
I have said I think you are over egging it.
Meaning you have run out of argument, can't accept that you are in the wrong and have just resorted to the coward's method of calling me a liar.

Thank God for Grainger and Send Clowns for showing I am not the only one with the opinion I have. I won't state it because you will probably have stopped reading on the second line and be busy having a go at me for not slowing down.

eal401
8th Mar 2006, 06:11
can't accept that you are in the wrong
Maybe not the case after all. :O

UniFoxOs
23rd May 2006, 10:38
Well maybe he's got his come-uppance.....

http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1507535


UFO