Mike H Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Ah, but that's applying logic - there's your mistake 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Colonial Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 People can be idiots behind the wheel, in or out of uniform. Police officers do a great job In general, but there are still a very few who think the shield allows them to do what they like, because they're only human. So don't take the following as a general rant against the police... I was driving on the M40 South at 7 in the morning. The lone car ahead on me was (of course) in Lane 2 doing 60mph, forcing me to overtake at 70 using Lane 3. A dark green Volvo S40 then approaches from behind at about 90 mph and plants himself on my boot lid, so much so that I couldn't see anything in my mirror but his windscreen, so less than a car length. I wasn't about to be bullied, so I kept my speed and safely completed the overtake, moving into Lane 1. The Volvo then pulled alongside me and the driver shook his fist at me, to which I replied with the universal hand signal to indicate he was an onanistic person. Next thing I know, the Volvo speeds up and cuts my across nose into Lane 1, again less than car length in front of me, forcing me to brake, which he did as well, down to 60. At the same time, a board in his rear window popped up and lit up, saying "POLICE". I did nothing, just held position. About ten seconds later, the board dropped back down and he sped off, again doing 90. Bear in mind that at no point were there blues and twos, and the car was completely unmarked. Less than a minute later, I saw the car pull into the services, so highly annoyed, I followed him in to see what was so important that he felt it a appropriate to bully me and put other motorists at risk. The answer was Costa Coffee - he needed a large latte. So I confronted him in the queue about his behaviour. After the surprise of being caught, he was unrepentant, so I demanded his name and number, got the registration number of the car, and reported him. Despite placing the report, and following it up with three phone calls in two months, I received no confirmations, no replies, and no apologies. Lets just say it has made my opinion of the police service somewhat less than entirely positive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housebeautician Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Lets just say it has made my opinion of the police service somewhat less than entirely positive. It's funny how an experience of a officer like this can change your whole attitude to the rest of the force, and of course when you vocalise your experience you then become classed as a police hater . In the original post it seems that the unmarked car instigated the offence committed, by tailgating which as we know is also an offence. I think reporting them is a waste of your time as nothing generally happens when you do. The other shame is that the membership secretary will never forget the actions of the officer who performed that wonderful stunt Whats that old saying "A few rotten apples" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanS Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Sadly there are "officers" who are, or behave like a**eholes. I had 2 young officers tailgate me in a 30 shortly after passing my test, but fortunately stuck to 30 and after driving dangerously close for a while, realised I was not going to be intimidated into breaking the law so dropped back. 6 months ago, I was returning from a gig at 0130 and a marked police car roared after me in a 30 (I was obeying speed limits as I always do in 30's) and he tailgated me to the point I consisered slamming my brakes on to "avoid a cat that ran out". After a while he realised I was not going to fall for his intimidation so flashed his blues to stop. He asked me the usual questions and where I'd been/going etc and asked if I'd had anything to drink and I said about 2 pints of water with lemon juice (I never drink alcohol at gigs). I asked him why he drove dangerously close, and he just smiled and left. I believe the only way forward is to play them at their own game in fitting forward/rear cameras purely to protect yourself against idiots (uniformed or otherwise). But at the end of the day they all stick together and if you had evidence against one of their own, you'd end up a marked man and no doubt be stopped at every opportunity Sad situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housebeautician Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Seems like tailgating is a game they play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I have very high regard for our police but understand some don't always act as they should. Same in all walks of life. With regard to the subject what we don't know is what was said when the officers and lad spoke by the side of the road. For example. if the officers asked why he sped up and the lad replied "well I didn't know you were a police car" I can see grounds for issuing a warning. However if the response was "I thought you were two young thugs out for trouble so thought the best action was to get away" may have brought a different response. But as we don't know we can't comment more than conjecture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moff88 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I agree with norm entirely. A couple of points though. A section 59 is valid whether you sign or not. It is placed on the vehicle AND the driver in that force area. There's a difference between accelerating a little to put some space and then slowing again and just booting it. Tailgating is done sometimes (not always) to try and see inside the vehicle. And finally, in the words of Alan Partridge, every profession has its Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housebeautician Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I have very high regard for our police but understand some don't always act as they should. Same in all walks of life. With regard to the subject what we don't know is what was said when the officers and lad spoke by the side of the road. For example. if the officers asked why he sped up and the lad replied "well I didn't know you were a police car" I can see grounds for issuing a warning. However if the response was "I thought you were two young thugs out for trouble so thought the best action was to get away" may have brought a different response. But as we don't know we can't comment more than conjecture. Tailgating is an offence NV If the officers had not done so , no questions or replies are or were required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housebeautician Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I agree with norm entirely. A couple of points though. A section 59 is valid whether you sign or not. It is placed on the vehicle AND the driver in that force area. There's a difference between accelerating a little to put some space and then slowing again and just booting it. Tailgating is done sometimes (not always) to try and see inside the vehicle. And finally, in the words of Alan Partridge, every profession has its No need for tailgating as it is an offence whether done so by police or public. If they wish to see inside the car then they should have stopped him and asked to do so, and i am sure he would have been happy to oblige. Tailgating is a method used to get a desired response. There is also no need when they have the power to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Tailgaiting may well be an offence but define "tailgaiting". We don't know that the police car was so close as to commit "tailgaiting". They may well have driven up behind but not so close as to commit "tailgaiting", we just don't know. To emphasise the point I'm making I've been stopped far more times than I would wish. Doing 80,000 miles a year mostly on motorways it's inevitable. However, by knowing how to answer the usual question I was verbally warned on most occasions. If I was on duty in an marked or unmarked car and saw a young lad in an expensive car I would stop them to ensure they weren't committing an offence. As we don't know what happened we shouldn't make judgments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housebeautician Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Tailgaiting may well be an offence but define "tailgaiting". We don't know that the police car was so close as to commit "tailgaiting". They may well have driven up behind but not so close as to commit "tailgaiting", we just don't know. If I was on duty in an marked or unmarked car and saw a young lad in an expensive car I would stop them to ensure they weren't committing an offence. As we don't know what happened we shouldn't make judgments. Norman Think about the OP Whilst we do not the actual distance, the fact that the fella moved ahead to put space between them indicates they were very close As for your second point have you yourself not judged that young lad for just driving an expensive car. Sadly It seems to me that some police make the rules up to suit themselves as they go along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 HB, it doesn't prove that the car behind was "very close" it does say they got closer. I wasn't judging the lad for driving an expensive car. I was pointing out that I would want to check that all was well seeing a youngster driving an expensive car in the early hours of the morning. If your "expensive" car had been stolen from outside your house at 01:00 and you were later informed that a police car had seen a youngster driving the car I think you may be a bit upset that they didn't stop him. Sadly it's a fact of life in the UK. Car theft is common and mainly carried out by youngsters. Having worked very closely with a police force for 10 years I found that the vast majority of officers kept to within the law when carrying out there duties. However, for example, if some officers had "stepped over the line" at Hillsborough 96 fans wouldn't have died. It's never as black & white as we think. By the way, the OP has this third hand. It wasn't his lad but the lad of a friend. I'm not saying he has the facts wrong. only saying he wasn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housebeautician Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Norman It is a known fact that the police employ this tactic to get such a response I"m sorry but you cannot say that you have not judged him and using that excuse" if it was your car" is not an excuse for judging him and as a matter of fact when my car was done the police just said nowt we can do here is your crime number. Things are not black and white its true, and for this reason injustice is rife, especially when a officer interprets what he is doing as within the law and the public see it as liberty taking. Yet again Norman we do not see eye to eye on this subject and must agree to differ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Verona Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 A known fact by whom? I said "If I was a police officer" I was not judging anyone. Anyway, I'm happy to remain friends and agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wile E. Coyote Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 The reality is, if someone's too close to you, you don't increase the gap by speeding up. Agree completely, it's asking for trouble. Good run out today Steve? (Think it was you heading through the village just after noon?) I think a very strong letter, naming the officers to the Chief Constable and his boss, the newly appointed Gov Rep, from the lads parents should follow What's it got to do with the parents? Surely if the lad feels aggrieved he should be the one complaining? Letter from parents is just a load of hearsay and would most likely come across as parents defending child irrespective of the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.