Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MOP1 last won the day on December 11 2012

MOP1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About MOP1

  • Rank
    Learning Curve
  1. NEWS:Can you see a problem here?

    The clip starts with an image of a three-lane road with an ASL. It jumps to a talking face, then jumps again to a road (probably the same one) showing two-lanes plus a bus stop. It jumps again, now (at 14 seconds) there are three lanes (RH lane signed for right turn) and the van passing, too close (in the same lane as the cyclist) and getting closer. By 16 seconds, the trailer is occupying the position in the lane where where the cyclist had been and a second white van is overtaking him on the inside. That is clearly complete indifference (on the part of both van drivers) to the cyclist's safety. The van on the right, with trailer has cut in to use the whole of the lane that the cyclist was occupying, in order to get past the traffic island that was visible at 14 secs, blocking the RH lane from proceeding ahead.
  2. NEWS:Can you see a problem here?

    "straddling two lanes": Rather difficult for a cyclist!. At 14 seconds into the video (i.e. when the editing first allows you to see any of the incident), he is lined up just to the left of the directional arrow in the middle lane of three and the van is already overtaking him and causing him to move further left. It was dangerous because it passed too close and at speed, and because it forced the cyclist towards the white van which was just behind him in the left-hand lane. Neither overtaking van (on left or right) would have been able to stop if the slipstream from the pass, or the sheer shock of having something pass that close to his elbow, caused the cyclist to lose control (as could easily happen). Clearly neither driver frankly cared; rather more worryingly, I seem to detect the same lack of care from you. Am I correct in that?
  3. NEWS:Can you see a problem here?

    Safely. Do you drive? Cars are held up all the time, usually by other cars; if they cannot pass safely, it is never acceptable to make a dangerous overtake. The question wouldn't even be asked if the video showed an unsafe overtake of another motor vehicle, so why the suggestion that an unsafe overtake is OK here? Because it was the only way to get past? Then hold back! Sooner or later the cyclist will go in a different direction, or a safe overtaking opportunity will present itself, or the cyclist will disappear off past a traffic jam (average cycle speeds in London are faster than average motor vehicle speeds). The imperative of 'Must get past' is one of the most dangerous fixations any driver can have. Aggressive driving and dangerous passing is illegal. It is unfortunate that some police forces have a policy of ignoring it unless there is serious injury, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable, safe or indeed legal.
  4. NEWS:Police on mountain bikes

    Nice article leading into (again) excerpts fro the 'War on Britains roads' program. Kenners, there's loads of cycling vids out there, no need to use that program. Try searching U-Tube for "Silly cyclists". "Knocking that woman down then blaming her seems a bit rich. " ... Ahh, that was "taypet" - he got such a telling off on the cycling forum he posted that on! I believe he is a somewhat reformed character after that!!
  5. NEWS:Can you see a problem here?

    I'm not trying to defend his cycling, I have made a couple of suggestions why he might have been in the right hand (actually middle when the van stared the overtake) lane. I have no idea what was behind him in the inside lane (nor has anyone else here) so no idea if this lane was safe for him to move left into. As a cyclist I'm sure you know how terrifying it can be when someone nearly kills you. With no protective metal creating a sense of safety, it can be an emotional experience. Some cope with it better, some sorse than others. But none of that matters, I repeat: Whatever reason he had for being there (even if it was a bad one) the van-and-trailer's overtake was clearly dangerous and without any care what happened to the cyclist. Deliberately endangering another road user is illegal, if it was a 'punishment pass' that is not a mitigating circumstance but an aggravating one. Or perhaps it wasn't deliberately endangering him? Just carelessly doing so ...
  6. Caught on camera:

    Kenners, you've got these incidents from 'War on Britain's Roads': A program deliberately edited to give the impression of a literal 'war' between cyclists and motorists. It was made in order to "provoke" a reaction and chose incidents accordingly (some incidents are even edited to show aggression, when the real story of the incident was cooperation). That there are badly-behaved road users of all sorts out there is known to us all. Please don't fall for the program maker's agenda though as it is not true. There is no war between cyclists and drivers, just between bad road users and good.
  7. NEWS:Can you see a problem here?

    At 14 seconds, just as it cuts back to the road from interview, van cab has started to push past. There is a right turn lane that he could have been heading for, just before the central island starts. Nevertheless, whatever reason he had for being there (even if it was a bad one) the van-and-trailer's overtake was clearly dangerous and without any care what happened to the cyclist. Deliberately endangering another road user is illegal, if it was a 'punishment pass' that is not a mitigating circumstance but an aggravating one.
  8. NEWS:Can you see a problem here?

    He is positioned just to the left of the arrow in the centre of the middle lane. Depending on where he was intending to go (perhaps to the next lane across which turned right?) then that could be a valid position; the clip doesn't show what happened immediately prior to that - he could also be there perfectly legitimately having just overtaken a slower or stationary vehicle in the left lane. Whatever reason he had for being there (even if it was a bad one) the van-and-trailer's overtake was clearly dangerous and without any care what happened to the cyclist. The fact that no further action was taken is no indication that the driving was acceptable, I'd have thought the posters on this forum would know very well the obstacles in place to following this up - identifying the driver might be a start.
  9. What constitutes a wheelie?

    Motorcycle safety video:
  10. Off duty witness

    A very interesting thought from a police officer, especially when looking at figures for 'Reported Crime'. :sad:
  11. NEWS:Officer Injured During Emergency Response

    I think this is what we are both referring to? "Thrown out" obviously means something different to you than it does to me. He was found not guilty - he is not guilty, he did nothing wrong - which is what I meant by "thrown out". Obviously the problem is that 'someone' decided to try to get him convicted for doing his job correctly and that is wrong. He was (according to the verdict) doing his job correctly - that should have been recognised by whoever reported him to CPS and this should not have needed to go to court (but the court, by finding him not guilty came IMO to the correct verdict). Holding anyone responsible for the actions of a third party (with whom they have not conspired) defies reason. As for saying a persons skill level ie police driver training could not be taken into consideration, this just shows how disconnected from reality some judges are! Of course a higher driving skill can and should be taken into consideration, along with what our society expects Police officers to do (deter and catch criminals). I am here, vehemently agreeing that the prosecution of PC Holden and the (separate) comments by a judge re. police driver training have made it harder for Police to do their job, but the court decision was as far as I am aware, in PC Holden's favour (for what relief that gives us).
  12. NEWS:Officer Injured During Emergency Response

    IIRC the dangerous driving charge was thrown out in that other case, so it wasn't dangerous driving. The issue is of course that someone who was supposed to be backing the driver, instead decided to try to get him convicted (for doing his job correctly).
  13. Avon and Somerset Police 'steal' bikes to test reaction: How do posters here explain the lack of response from passing public? Apathy? Conditioned by years of 'Let the Professionals deal with it' public pronouncements? Lack of expectation of any result? Fear (can so many people be afraid, even of reporting the incidents anonymously)? Something else?
  14. Should officers be armed with Tasers?

    I agree with the text I have bolded. The rest is prejudging the investigation and speculation on no evidence.
  15. Should officers be armed with Tasers?

    Why a split second decision? Meditate, I can tell that you've never used a sword: I train with them. The turning away that the man in the clip demonstrated is a move into a 'ready to strike' position. From that position with a cutting sword in hand, I have a range of about eight feet without moving my feet; by moving one foot I can easily extend that to over ten feet. That is a move so fast that the officer would not have time to put am already-drawn taser on (the moving) target. Frankly even were I carrying a golf club* or walking stick, serious and potentially lethal damage is possible to an unarmoured target. What is the optimum range of a taser? This man did not 'vaguely fit the description' of the samurai sword carrier (I haven't read any report with such a description), he was carrying a long, potentially lethal object (there is no way the police cold know it was as collapsible as their batons) he did not comply with whatever approach was made but (to his misfortune) moved to a potentially threatening position. As for your continued insistence that the gentleman had suffered two strokes: Was the police officer supposed to know that by some psychic power? *I'll bet there are plenty of instances where a reported 'samurai sword' turns out to be a golf club - which can be equally lethal.