Police Officer with a chip?

[middleman]

I think the police man chose to speak to him because like many he has a poor attitude towards cyclists than any suggestion of risk. We've all watched the video, he didn't put anyone at risk, there wasn't any traffic.
You can waffle on about policing by consent and what might happen in other parts of the world all you like, but the fact remains that in the UK where it was filmed he hasn't broken any laws and the police officer had no right to speak to him in the disrespectful manner that he did.

I have listened to the video again after your reply. What did the Police officer say that was disrespectful? Or how was his manner disrespectful? Or are you saying that a Police officer in the UK cannot speak to a member of the public?

 

[Sara_H]

I have listened to the video again after your reply. What did the Police officer say that was disrespectful? Or how was his manner disrespectful? Or are you saying that a Police officer in the UK cannot speak to a member of the public?

I thought his general tone was quite rude. He constantly speaks over the man when he tries to reply and at one point tells him " this is a one way conversation. "He's shouting through most of the conversation. it was completely disrespectful.
I fail to see how anyone could interpret that as a polite response from the police officer.

 

[Hill Wimp]

How do you know that Police Officer wasn't a cyclist himself like many members of CC

 

[middleman]

I thought his general tone was quite rude. He constantly speaks over the man when he tries to reply and at one point tells him " this is a one way conversation. " it was completely disrespectful.

Maybe he should have asked the cyclist politely to dismount at the side of the road so that he could speak to him, parked his car and then had the conversation safely at the side of the road. Would have taken much longer though which would have been completely disgraceful verging on unlawful detention.

 

[Sara_H]

Maybe he should have asked the cyclist politely to dismount at the side of the road so that he could speak to him, parked his car and then had the conversation safely at the side of the road.

No he shouldn't. He should have let him go about his business un - harassed given that he'd not done anything wrong, instead of taking what he thought was an easy opportunity to bully a member of the public.

 

[middleman]

No he shouldn't. He should have let him go about his business un - harassed given that he'd not done anything wrong, instead of taking what he thought was an easy opportunity to bully a member of the public.

I take it the Police do not have your consent from you as you assume the Police Officers intentions were as stated above. "easy opportunity to bully a member of the public".

 

[swansonj]

In a person-pushing-bicycle combination, there are two components: the person, who has the character of a pedestrian, and the bicycle, which has the character of a vehicle. The question is, in legal terms, which of the two contradictory categories applies to the combo? Pedestrian, in which the actions of the cyclist in the vid are legal, or vehicle, in which case they are not? C v. B says that when the person starts as a pedestrian, pushing the bike on the pavement, and ends likewise as a pedestrian on a pavement, it is sensible to treat them as a pedestrian even when they're on the carriageway. It seems to me (though I am not setting myself up as an expert) that the converse is also sensible: when they start the manoeuvre as a vehicle, on the carriageway, and finish it once again as a vehicle on the carriageway, and remain on the carriageway throughout, their predominant character during the ambiguous pushing-the-bike phase is also that of a vehicle.

 

[middleman]

In a person-pushing-bicycle combination, there are two components: the person, who has the character of a pedestrian, and the bicycle, which has the character of a vehicle. The question is, in legal terms, which of the two contradictory categories applies to the combo? Pedestrian, in which the actions of the cyclist in the vid are legal, or vehicle, in which case they are not? C v. B says that when the person starts as a pedestrian, pushing the bike on the pavement, and ends likewise as a pedestrian on a pavement, it is sensible to treat them as a pedestrian even when they're on the carriageway. It seems to me (though I am not setting myself up as an expert) that the converse is also sensible: when they start the manoeuvre as a vehicle, on the carriageway, and finish it once again as a vehicle on the carriageway, and remain on the carriageway throughout, their predominant character during the ambiguous pushing-the-bike phase is also that of a vehicle.

That's a very interesting point very well put. Not sure if it has ever been tested and in this case I doubt it will be but it supports my reasoning above @swansonj

 

[doog]

I suspect the police man chose to speak to him because like many he has a poor attitude towards cyclists than concern of risk. We've all watched the video, he didn't put anyone at risk, there wasn't any traffic.
You can waffle on about policing by consent and what might happen in other parts of the world all you like, but the fact remains that in the UK where it was filmed he hasn't broken any laws and the police officer had no right to speak to him in the disrespectful manner that he did.

what the hell have I just read ?

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the cop was simply giving the bloke some advice.....sprinting across a junction at a red light holding a bike or anything else is detrimental to not only his but also the safety of other road users..

its worth noting that standing on a bridge parapet over a fast flowing river isnt illegal, yet should any passing cop (whos duty is to protect) god forbid should encounter a cyclist on a suicide run....forget it...

 

[Hill Wimp]

what the hell have I just read ?

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the cop was simply giving the bloke some advice.....sprinting across a junction at a red light holding a bike or anything else is detrimental to not only his but also the safety of other road users..

Woah steady on @doog this is not the thread for sensible and obvious common sense talk.

 

[swansonj]

Actually, there's something else going on here too. Even if the cop genuinely just wants to be helpful, once he's put his siren on and, perforce, shouted because he's still in his car and on the far side too, it's going to be very difficult for the conversation to get off on anything other than a confrontational footing. I think that's a perennial problem in encounters between police and members of the public who are in the grey zone between pure-as-the-driven-snow and hardened criminal - how to avoid an escalating power play.

 

[doog]

Actually, there's something else going on here too. Even if the cop genuinely just wants to be helpful, once he's put his siren on and, perforce, shouted because he's still in his car and on the far side too, it's going to be very difficult for the conversation to get off on anything other than a confrontational footing. I think that's a perennial problem in encounters between police and members of the public who are in the grey zone between pure-as-the-driven-snow and hardened criminal - how to avoid an escalating power play.

It was simply a word wasnt it....something done thousands of times a day .The escalation came when the cyclist refused to accept it and uploaded it to social media. I doubt the cop has given it a second thought.

 

[boydj]

I had one set of light on my commute where, if I just missed the lights, then next in the sequence was the pedestrian light, followed by greens for two other roads before my road had it's turn again. Walking across on the pedestrian green was an eminently sensible, and legal, thing to do.

 

[Bianchi boy]

Totally legal did nothing wrong, once you dismount your bicycle you are a pedestrian, let the police take it further, a judge would have them for contempt of court for wasting cps time

 

[Sara_H]

what the hell have I just read ?

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the cop was simply giving the bloke some advice.....sprinting across a junction at a red light holding a bike or anything else is detrimental to not only his but also the safety of other road users..

its worth noting that standing on a bridge parapet over a fast flowing river isnt illegal, yet should any passing cop (whos duty is to protect) god forbid should encounter a cyclist on a suicide run....forget it...

No he wasn't simply giving advice. He was rude and confrontational over what essentially was a non event.