Near Miss of the Day 643: Police officer pulls out on cyclist

I wonder if its just possible they had a reason to not use their indicators? Budget cuts maybe? Pay-per-blink?

nicmason wrote:

I wonder if its just possible they had a reason to park thats side and hadnt read the road cc guide on how to drive without affecting the cycling snowflake community.

No need to consult RCCG. HWC 239 1st bullet is clear

"Rule 239

Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:

• do not park facing against the traffic flow"

nicmason wrote:

Save your venom for seriously bad driving it'll be more effective.

Yeah, facking snowflake cyclist not wanting to get hit by highly skilled and trained negligent drivers...

And as the police hating trusty roadcc lawyers dust off their legalese for some reason I have the elephant march from jungle book as appropriate backing music   

nicmason wrote:

And as the police hating trusty roadcc lawyers dust off their legalese for some reason I have the elephant march from jungle book as appropriate backing music   

Oh Nic, I was quoting the HWC, that's all. Anything more than ad-hominem?

Of course not, otherwise you'd have already brought it forward. Silly question.....

Have a great day dude

nothing more at the moment. 

You too.

nicmason wrote:

And as the police hating trusty roadcc lawyers dust off their legalese for some reason I have the elephant march from jungle book as appropriate backing music   

Lol, classic troll's gotcha. Challenge people to prove what's wrong then mock them when they do. 
 

What is the point of you?

Wingguy wrote:

nicmason wrote:

And as the police hating trusty roadcc lawyers dust off their legalese for some reason I have the elephant march from jungle book as appropriate backing music   

Lol, classic troll's gotcha. Challenge people to prove what's wrong then mock them when they do. 
 

What is the point of you?

A friend first, and a troll second, probably an entertainer third.… 

Thats quite a philisophical question.  whats the point of anyone ?

But in this case I am am mocking the endless play back of rules and regulations .

I wonder how many of these people follow every highway code regulation to the letter. I'm going to guess thats a big fat zero.

nicmason wrote:

But in this case I am am mocking the endless play back of rules and regulations .

I wonder how many of these people follow every highway code regulation to the letter. I'm going to guess thats a big fat zero.

No you seem to be judging the rest of us by your own standards there.

nicmason wrote:

But in this case I am am mocking the endless play back of rules and regulations .

I wonder how many of these people follow every highway code regulation to the letter. I'm going to guess thats a big fat zero.

Unless you are a genuine anarchist the flaw in your logic should be glaringly obvious to you. Laws and regulations do not cease to have any meaning simply because they are not always obeyed.

Further, the only reason anyone needs to quote the regulations at you is because you pretend to be obtuse enough not to see the careless driving that is present on the video as plain as the nose on your face. 

It's legalese now to know the highway code?

How does anyone pass their driving test without knowing the basics of the highway code? Or even how to drive with regard to other road users?

Of course instead of labelling everyone police haters, you could just acknowledge it was a poor piece of driving that was mitigated by an experienced cyclist.

Captain Badger wrote:

nicmason wrote:

I wonder if its just possible they had a reason to park thats side and hadnt read the road cc guide on how to drive without affecting the cycling snowflake community.

No need to consult RCCG. HWC 239 1st bullet is clear

"Rule 239

Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside:

• do not park facing against the traffic flow"

nicmason wrote:

Save your venom for seriously bad driving it'll be more effective.

Yeah, facking snowflake cyclist not wanting to get hit by highly skilled and trained negligent drivers...

 

amazing the powe that roadcc has, being able to get our driving whims incoporated into the highway code.

Also worrying that police officer/police fanboy NicMason is unaware of the perfectly sound guidance provided in the highway code to make the roads safer for everyone. Doesn't like he people being criticsed for below standard drving, sounds like a bit of a snowflake.

There was no venom from me, I was just pointing out where driving could be done better and the likely cause of the police officer not seeing the cyclist, a much more likely reason than his after you, no after you scenario.

There was hardly a shortage of spaces on the opposite side where they could have parked safer. or maybe they were all full before this single police car raided a house party, and 50 guys ran from the building and jumped in their cars to drive away, freeing up spaces that had previously been occupied.

nicmason wrote:

I wonder if its just possible they had a reason to park thats side and hadnt read the road cc guide on how to drive without affecting the cycling snowflake community.

Or maybe they hadn't read the highway code...

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/parking.html

You do indeed get lots of traffic on roads in cities, that's why you have to look in your mirrors to see if there is any traffic coming which you will impede before you pull out from a parking space into their path. If there is, you are supposed to stop and let them through. You should also indicate your intention to pull out from a parking space by using your indicators. This is not rocket science. Professional police drivers who have gone through at least the basic police driving course should be capable of not making errors that would get them a fail on a driving test.

If thats the worst you see cycling round London you are blessed. But thanks for sharing.

nicmason wrote:

If thats the worst you see cycling round London you are blessed. But thanks for sharing.

It's not even the worst I saw on this morning's 25 km commute, however it is extremely concerning that a professional police driver is not capable of driving to a standard which would allow him/her to pass their driving test. This is a driver who will be allowed to drive on the sirens/lights at very high speed through crowded urban areas. If they're not capable of accomplishing the most basic low-speed manoeuvre in a safe and legal manner, they need to be spoken to and their driving addressed.

"This is a driver who will be allowed to drive on the sirens/lights at very high speed through crowded urban areas."

not necessarily. not all drivers of police cars are trained for blue light driving and as such aren't allowed to.. 

nicmason wrote:

not necessarily. not all drivers of police cars are trained for blue light driving and as such aren't allowed to.. 

So there are police officers driving emergency response vehicles who are not allowed to use the emergency response capacity? If that's true it's a terrific waste of money then, why don't they just have ordinary cars with the paintjob but no lights and sirens (which doubtless, knowing government procurement, cost many thousands extra) for those drivers?

nicmason wrote:

"This is a driver who will be allowed to drive on the sirens/lights at very high speed through crowded urban areas."

not necessarily. not all drivers of police cars are trained for blue light driving and as such aren't allowed to.. 

Spare us your tedious playback of the endless minutiae of police rules and regs. Do you claim no police officer has ever used blue lights when they shouldn't have? If not your entire post is, by your own standards, irrelevant.

"Do you claim no police officer has ever used blue lights when they shouldn't have?"

no  don't claim that. 

nicmason wrote:

"Do you claim no police officer has ever used blue lights when they shouldn't have?"

no  don't claim that. 

Then why did you bring it up? Again, by your standard it's clearly irrelevant whether or not the driver is allowed to use the blue lights since they might use the blue lights anyway.

All things rules etc are surrounded by a certain amount of uncertainty . Thats because we are humans . Some of us are anyway. 

nicmason wrote:

All things rules etc are surrounded by a certain amount of uncertainty . Thats because we are humans . Some of us are anyway. 

So again the question, why bother mentioning the existence of the rule in the first place if it is uncertain and irrelevant?

nicmason wrote:

If thats the worst you see cycling round London you are blessed. But thanks for sharing.

That's a bizarre take.  "Lots of drivers drive dangeously around London, therefore it's ok for the police to pull out in front of a cyclist?"

Steve K wrote:

nicmason wrote:

If thats the worst you see cycling round London you are blessed. But thanks for sharing.

That's a bizarre take.  "Lots of drivers drive dangeously around London, therefore it's ok for the police to pull out in front of a cyclist?"

"yes your honour, my driving was not in accordance with the highway code, but at least 50% of drivers do worse things" isn't the sort of technicality that will get you off.

wycombewheeler wrote:

"yes your honour, my driving was not in accordance with the highway code, but at least 50% of drivers do worse things" isn't the sort of technicality that will get you off.

It shouldn't be the sort of technicality that will get you off, but...

I knew which someone would see that video and take it as they saw the cyclist (saw him enough to indicate intention, no thought not). And no, they did not slow down to let him through. (nice thing called brake lights indicate that) which don't come on at any point after they made the decision to cross into the cyclists path. 

Still as you regularly defend bad driving and actually admit to going the "wrong way around roundabouts as it is easier init", then I think you telling us what IS good driving is laughable.  

The test the police use for driving without due care is "Did they cause a road user to slow down or alter course?"

Clearly they did, so an offence has been committed.

nicmason wrote:

Nothing to see. Looked to me like they started pulling out and slowed because of the cyclist who also slowed so they went. Its called traffic and you find a lot of it on roads especially in cities.

Of course there is nothing to see, because you can't seem to see anything.

The police car slowed down not because of the cyclist, they pulled out slowly so that they could see what traffic was coming in front of them, then when they saw a car coming towards them they braked and pulled into the gap in the parking bay to let the oncoming car past.

The oncoming car then let the police car past the parked cars.

But yes given your previous comments about how you are simultaneously a better rider than everyone here but drive your motorcar with reckless abandon of course you will try and blame Rendell for the ineptitude of the motorist.