Very close police car overtake...

[BentMikey]

So that's a refusal then. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

 

[CopperBrompton]

So that's a refusal then. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

No, it's an agreement to a like-for-like experience. If it hadn't been a police response car, I'd have been every bit as upset as you.

Anyway, as I say, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[BentMikey]

Rubbish. The driver is not relevant, the closeness of the pass is. I just told my neighbour (copper), and he laughed at you, saying no reasonable person would place their wife and kids in that situation.

You wouldn't do it, you're just being a keyboard warrior on here. And even if you would, you're then not being particularly sane, and I bet your wife would refuse out of hand. Anyone care to suggest otherwise?

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

It doesn't matter how experienced and/or well trained the driver is, that pass was far too close. The air turbulence alone could have caused problems. The fact that it is by a Police Officer just makes it worse, as they *should* know better with all their extra training.

P*ss poor driving.

 

[HLaB]

Having just seem the vid I'm not surpised by Mikey's reaction. We can only hope that it was an overtake judged to the n'th degree by a top class driver but it was still a pi$$ poor overtake, which doesn't suggest it was.

 

[BentMikey]

I've found out that's a dog car apparently, so I don't think they will have the highest level of police driver training. Probably just a blues and twos certification, or something like that. Maybe one of the coppers on here could elaborate on the likely training?

 

[CopperBrompton]

The driver is not relevant

Like I say, let's just agree to disagree. What matters is that it happened to you, and you're unhappy about it. I wish you success if you decide to pursue it.

 

[BentMikey]

No Ben, admit your error. You've lost your debate point, move on. You don't have the courage to place your family in a similar situation, so you know you're wrong, and your refusal to admit it is p1$$ poor. I no longer have any respect for your debating, you're all mouth and no trousers.

 

[Ashtrayhead]

I've found out that's a dog car apparently, so I don't think they will have the highest level of police driver training. Probably just a blues and twos certification, or something like that. Maybe one of the coppers on here could elaborate on the likely training?

The driver would need to be response trained at least and would have had some sort of 'familiarisation' for the vehicle. There are some dog handlers who are also advanced drivers, but that doesn't excuse the overtake, especially when you see that the wing mirror is a gnat's cock from you!
I don't think the driver saw you as his road position doesn't deviate at all.

 

[DrSquirrel]

No, it's people that take into account the ''what if'' scenarios that make the roads more dangerous for people that don't account for them.

You could go on all day about ''what if's'' and still come to the same conclusion and on this basis - it's bollox.

What on earth are you on about?

People who drive more safely(taking into account possibilities... ifs) are making the road more dangerous for the people that don't??

Can't you see how crazy that is?



There is a balance needed for the if, and the amount of risk something poses...
Here we have the risks of speed and a vulnerable road user, matched with (as people want to point out, but wasn't that close) oncoming traffic, and maybe the traffic island. Tell me, which risks can the driver control... (note: speed + passing distance).

Instead here, they decided not to reduce the speed or increase the passing distance... if they couldn't increase the passing distance because of the oncoming traffic/island, they should have used a more suitable speed.

All he had to do was place his offside wheels near the dotted line like the other cars did, and it would have been a perfectly fine overtake, no risks from the oncoming traffic, and no risk to me either.

People are missing out that oncoming traffic would have most likely been slowing + moving as far to their left...
Even if they didn't "behave" there was still enough room... and after all a clipped wing mirror is a bit better than a broken elbow...

No, it's an agreement to a like-for-like experience. If it hadn't been a police response car, I'd have been every bit as upset as you.

Anyway, as I say, let's just agree to disagree.

You need to calm down. I doubt any Class One driver would even want to attempt it anyway, and most people know this... thus people can bravado it up and say "yea sure, my kids can stand there all day and I won't be worried one bit...".

 

[CopperBrompton]

No Ben, admit your error. You've lost your debate point, move on. You don't have the courage to place your family in a similar situation, so you know you're wrong, and your refusal to admit it is p1$$ poor. I no longer have any respect for your debating, you're all mouth and no trousers.

Once things reach the level of personal attack, there's no point in continuing. Best of luck, I'm out of here.

 

[Origamist]

That was too close. An extra 50cm would have made the overtake a lot less uncomfortable and the police driver would not have had to leave the lane.

At busy junctions when emergency vehicles approach, I often mount the kerb as traffic often splinters in all directions. I guess on a bent, this is not an option unless there is a dropped kerb close by? That said, in the situation you found yourself in, I'd most likely have done the same thing.

 

[DrSquirrel]

This thread has been blown way out of proportion. I honestly think that some cyclists would argue that black is white when it comes to defending other cyclists.

BM, you need to calm down FFS.

Squirrel, you miss my point.

I missed or just don't understand your point? It sounds pretty clear to me (I did look for ways it could be misunderstood).

Not all cyclists defend each other, most admit their mistakes and lambast others (well on youtube I see it).

I even got blocked recently because I told a cyclist who posted their video up what I thought. bit mean of them

 

[DrSquirrel]

I still don't see it, your statment was pretty encompasing and is totally opposite of what we would expect.

People that don't take considerations of "ifs" make it more dangerous for people that do (well, for everyone).

But you said it's the people that DO MAKE the consideration that make it more dangerous for those that don't... why? how?

I don't see how this can be helped by anything else - and I am assuming here it's not some ultimate sarcasm.

 

[DrSquirrel]

You are just talking now about an annoyance, and are GRASPING AT STRAWS.

To say that the people that consider possible dangers (our lovely ifs) developing ahead cause more danger than a few people that dither about at a RAB are the same thing...

...I don't really know what to say - it's bordering on crazy.