One of the more niche sub-genres in our Near Miss of the Day series comprises incidents in which the perpetrator is a police officer – there’s some examples here –and it’s always a bit of a head-scratcher given that they tend to be better trained than the average driver as well as being, you know, the people tasked with upholding the law.
So while today’s offering, which happened on Lilford Road in Camberwell, South London just after 8am this morning is by no means the worst example of driving we’ve featured in the series, we thought it was worth sharing.
When even the police can’t be bothered to look for bikes or indicate before pulling away it’s no wonder the roads are dangerous…@MetCycleCops @metpoliceuk @MikeyCycling @anneramsey740 @Jezter55 @roadcc pic.twitter.com/CPh2FcbOZH
— Rendel Harris (@Rendel_Harris) October 12, 2021
As Rendel, the road.cc reader who posted the footage to Twitter says, “It’s not exactly a near miss (could have been if I hadn’t kept aware) but if the police can’t be bothered to look for bikes or indicate before pulling out …”
He added that he has lodged a formal complaint with the Metropolitan Police regarding the incident.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
136 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 643: Police officer pulls out on cyclist”
Following on from the
Following on from the “drivers taught to not always indicate to show that they are paying attention” discussion – I particularly hate it when drivers don’t indicate when pulling out from a parked position. This instance is a good example where “always indicate” is safer for other road users.
Good lord! You mean those
Good lord! You mean those flashy orange lights serve a genuine purpose? Well I never…
Not on BMWs in my experience.
Not on BMWs in my experience. Rumours of the man fitting the indicators on them being made redundant are rife.
But but if they’ve checked
But but if they’ve checked and assessed the situation first then it’s OK if they’re an advanced driver or trained police driver!
I’m sanguine about the police having to do it differently “in extremis” but they didn’t have their blues on so it don’t look like the Sweeney here. Just careless. Or “lacking courtesy” if you like.
You don’t indicate if you
You don’t indicate if you know there is nobody going to be affected by your actions.
An advanced motorist is therefore proving the point that they were unaware of the approaching bike.
The exceptions suggested include signalling on a roundabout rather than trying to signal when spotting an approaching vehicle, so you are not distracted by the action.
Don’t signal if your intention is ambiguous (e.g. changing lane just before a junction where an emerging car might make an assumption).
IanMSpencer wrote:
Perhaps, but pulling out from behind a parked vehicle, when parked on the righthand side of the road, into an oncoming traffic lane, with poor visibility – that is going to require indication everytime.
The correct course of action there would be don’t change lane – but if you must, you should definitely indicate. Otherwise the emerging driver will very like emerge into the lane that you are foolishly trying to move into. If I’m emerging from a junction and a car in the right hand lane is signalling left, there’s no way I’m going to take that as a cue that it is safe to emerge, quite the opposite. Heck if there’s a car in the left lane indicating left, I’m not going to emerge, unless I also see that they are reducing speed significantly (or already travelling slowly enough for me to emerge safely).
What would you do if you are
What would you do if you are turning left at traffic lights which are about 30 metres from the previous left junction, when the bus lane ends 5 metres before the previous junction?
I can assure you that signalling left gets drivers to pull out every time.
Try Google maps and have a look at Lode Lane approaching Solihull By-Pass and the relationship to Hermitage Road.
And I have done the Advanced Drivers Course and I am quoting their guidance.
IanMSpencer wrote:
The idea that you can know this, without room for any doubt whatsoever, bothers me. I understand that the idea is to get drivers to observe carefully and consider, rather than just indicating thoughtlessly as a matter of routine. But where is the harm in making careful observations and indicating, just in case you’re, you know, human and fallible after all?
The advanced driving
The advanced driving philosophy is that if you don’t know for sure, then you haven’t observed.
I used to be a signal all the time, and not signalling forces you to properly consider your observation. Think about it. If you signal automatically, you just signal. If you signal if another road user is around, then you have a cue to make sure you have looked. If you really can’t see, e.g. going around a wooded roundabout, then by all means signal, but the starting point is observation, not signalling.
Anyway, don’t take it up with me, have a go at the police accredited testers for advanced driving and the likes of IAM. It is driving systematically, so every decision is deliberate.
I wasn’t taking issue with
I wasn’t taking issue with you personally, it was just convenient to quote the words you’d used. When I said ‘you’, I meant ‘one’. As I said, I understand the theory, but for most drivers, I don’t see the harm in proper observations and indication. If you’re a vulnerable road user who hasn’t been seen, then it makes little difference if the person who failed to see you is an advanced motorist whose training tells them not to indicate, or a basic driver who just doesn’t bother. Indicating offers a degree of protection from fallible drivers in both camps.
I would have been highly
I would have been highly tempted to make the left and follow them to give them a piece of my mind.
I’d say that was a near miss too.
Nothing to see. Looked to me
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.
You’re funny
You’re funny
Looks to me like they started
Looks to me like they started pulling out until they could see what was coming in front of them, and then finished pulling out focusing entirely on what was coming in front of them, now that they could see it. This is the result of parking on the wrong side of the road. If you park on the left you have much better visibility when pulling out. You’d think police trained drivers would know this.
I wonder if its just possible
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.
Save your venom for seriously bad driving it’ll be more effective.
nicmason wrote:
They were too lazy to walk across a road? Like they were too lazy to check whether anything was coming, or to indicate before pulling out?
Did you actually bother reading the article?
perpetrator ? of what ?
perpetrator ? of what ?
Pulling out into traffic
Pulling out into traffic without indicating or waiting for the traffic to pass before moving I presume. It’s not the worst example of driving we have seen, but it is
1. not good
2. a traffic offense
3. dangerous
Pulling out into traffic
deleted as double post
nicmason wrote:
Bad driving, I assume. But that was road.cc’s choice of word, not mine, so I don’t really know why you’re asking me. Unless it’s just confirmation that you don’t actually read anything you’re responding to.
I wonder if its just possible
I wonder if its just possible they had a reason to not use their indicators? Budget cuts maybe? Pay-per-blink?
nicmason wrote:
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:
Yeah, facking snowflake cyclist not wanting to get hit by highly skilled and trained negligent drivers…
And as the polie hating
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:
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.
nothing more at the moment.
You too.
nicmason wrote:
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:
Lol, classic troll’s gotcha. Challenge people to prove what’s wrong then mock them when they do.
What is the point of you?— nicmason
A friend first, and a troll second, probably an entertainer third.…
Thats quite a philisophical
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:
No you seem to be judging the rest of us by your own standards there.
nicmason wrote:
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
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
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:
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:
Or maybe they hadn’t read the highway code…
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/parking.html
You do indeed get lots of
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
If thats the worst you see cycling round London you are blessed. But thanks for sharing.
nicmason wrote:
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
“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:
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:
not necessarily. not all drivers of police cars are trained for blue light driving and as such aren’t allowed to.. — nicmason
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
“Do you claim no police officer has ever used blue lights when they shouldn’t have?”
no don’t claim that.
nicmason wrote:
no don’t claim that. — nicmason
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
All things rules etc are surrounded by a certain amount of uncertainty . Thats because we are humans . Some of us are anyway.
nicmason wrote:
So again the question, why bother mentioning the existence of the rule in the first place if it is uncertain and irrelevant?
nicmason wrote:
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:
“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:
It shouldn’t be the sort of technicality that will get you off, but…
I knew which someone would
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
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:
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.
Much better language, I do
Much better language, I do believe my positive influence is rubbing off!
This is why people don’t get
This is why people don’t get prosecuted for Dangerous Driving, and the law needs changing. Dangerous Driving is considered as “far below expected standard of driving”. This shows how low the bar is for expected driving levels.
This is one of those weird
This is one of those weird situations. If I were in my car and this exact same thing happened I would slow down and let the Police car out. The reason being that for them the struggle is seeing what is coming towards them, which as a driver I can appreciate. I can easily stop then accelerate again so it takes little difference to me so I can help out by doing the after you Claude. What they did isn’t right but it is pretty predictable. On my bike I am more likely to resist slowing and feel they could have waited but ultimately I would still think the same I helped them out. Of course since they didn’t indicate I would be a lot less likely to want to help in either situation.
JLasTSR wrote:
Of course you would. If you didn’t slow down in this exact situation you would drive straight into their passenger door. I don’t think any of us would want to do that no matter what form of transport we were using.
I should perhaps point out
I should perhaps point out that there was an officer in the passenger seat who could have advised the driver on what was both in front and behind…
JLasTSR wrote:
Exactly what I’d have done too. You need to remember though that the journey to politeness and courtesy is a long and winding road, and Rendel has only just started his first tentative steps.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Again, is this supposed to be some kind of feather in your cap? Not driving straight into the side of a police car that has forced its way out in front of you is not something to boast about. It’s not an achievement and it doesn’t set you above any but the most unfathomably careless and incompetent.
It also has no bearing at all on whether the Police Officer’s driving was acceptable.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I fail to see how even you, with your much-bragged-of-self-identified courtesy,* could show courtesy to someone who pulls into your path without checking or signalling – or do you stop before every parked car just in case it’s occupied and the driver feels like (discourteously) pulling in front of you without check or signal? One is not psychic.
*Good manners are very like intelligence, in that those who genuinely possess them do not see the need to brag of them (indeed would see it as bad manners to do so), whereas those who do not make a great show of boasting (a very ill-mannered habit) of how courteous they are. It’s definitely been my experience that clever and polite people never brag of their manners or intelligence, whilst rude and stupid ones do little else – your hero Trump being a prime case in point on both counts.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I fail to see how even you, with your much-bragged-of-self-identified courtesy,* could show courtesy to someone who pulls into your path without checking or signalling – or do you stop before every parked car just in case it’s occupied and the driver feels like (discourteously) pulling in front of you without check or signal? One is not psychic.— Nigel Garrage
Do you remember the TV programme Ladette to Lady? Well my comments are very similar; you can think of them as “Nigel Garrage’s finishing school for errant cyclists”. You’ve certainly shown poor discipline and self-control in the past, but you’re now showing signs of getting your act together. To help with your next steps, I will simplify the journey as rungs on a ladder:
Nigel Garrage wrote:
How do you anticipate a manoeuver from a parked car which is not signalling and not moving?
How do you avoid colliding with a car that is pulling directly into your path then immediately slowing to a crawl without, at some point, slowing down yourself?
How polite and courteous do you think it is to lie about a person’s behaviour and the context of the situation they were in for the purposes of mocking them?
Do you think your current behaviour makes you seem like anything other than a thoroughly unpleasant, smug and superior prig?
Wingguy wrote:
Well I just disagree with all that. The police car’s lights were on and the driver was performing a manoevre a long way back in the approach.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Wait – I need to update my knowledge! So you’re saying that now having your brakes on while stopped is a manouevre and having your brake lights on for (checks video yet again) 8 seconds means “I am turning left”?
Most times I am waiting at
Most times I am waiting at lights on my bike I note how many drivers have their foot on the brake. Also when stopped at the side of the road a fair few hold the car in the footbrake. I sometimes shout out in an alan partridgesque way ‘use the handbrake’. (and ‘it’s not foggy, there’s no fog’ on other occasions)
The fact that brakes lights are on tells you nothing about the intentions of the driver.
hirsute wrote:
It tells you nothing of their intentions, but gives you some clue to their competence.
Had one yesterday. Parked
Had one yesterday. Parked partly on the pavement, on double yellow lines, pratting about on their mobile.
And you keep your foot on the brake in that situation because …?
Unfortunately, some cars are
Unfortunately, some cars are designed to have a locking footbrake, a double push on mine, which holds the car and then you can drive off.
It took awhile to work out that it kept the brake lights on.
As the alternative is an incredibly noisy and awkward foot operated handbrake with release lever somewhere over there, I stick with it, but leaving indicators and brake lights on while waiting is considered poor form, especially at night.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Of course you disagree. If you acknowledge reality you don’t get to perform your rude and condescending act.
Thing is, it doesn’t even matter – you’re still lying. How does the rider avoid hitting the police car without slowing down?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
No they aren’t & no he wasn’t.
Watch the video again.
If you don’t realise by now
If you don’t realise by now that Boo and Nic will cite alternative facts to get responses by now…….
Not citing any alternative
Not citing any alternative facts. My point is about the severity of the ‘incident’ and roadcc commentators ability to throw a hissy fit every time traffic impedes them. Your on a road . theres lots of things happen . its not a perfect world apart from in your highways code addled heads.
Well let face it with one
Well let face it with one more reminder below of it, one alternative fact you have used in the past is that you are good on the road so we should all listen to you. Unfortunately when trying to make out that the cyclist was in the wrong and it wasn’t the fault of the driver you bleated that you regulalry break the law of the road, (Not a should not but a must not which would lead to points being added).
And in other videos will stated cars were ahead of cyclists approaching an island, (they were not) and in this one stated that Police car had seen the cyclist and slowed down for him (they didn’t on either bit).
So alternative facts, unless you want me to call them lies?
Certainly never have blown my
Certainly never have blown my own trumpet re road craft. I leave that to others. And feel free to call them lies. What you say is up to you.
I hope you’ve got that
I hope you’ve got that screenshot backed up! 😉
nicmason wrote:
So much ignorance, so little time…
First, you need to look up a concept called the normalisation of deviance. Acceptance of simple careless driving as being ok and using that as your new baseline makes egregiously bad driving more common and more acceptable.
Second, you go further and suggest that because the bad behaviour is common it should be treated as OK. This is prima facie absurd. The logical conclusion of that stance is that fewer instances of bad behaviour is a worse situation than widespread instances of the same behaviour. It’s ludicrous.
Third, why do you care about defending the police and drivers on this forum? You’re on the internet, there’s lots of things that are said. It’s not a perfect world apart from in your pro uniform, pro car addled head.
Wingguy wrote:
How is it prima facie absurd?
If you use Latin in a sentence without understanding its meaning just to try to make yourself sound a bit more intelligent, it follows – ceteris paribus – that you’ll look like a bit of a wally instead ?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Thank you for providing a fine example of that.
The use of prima facie in the previous post is perfectly acceptable in the widely used sense of, “on the face of it, unless other evidence can be presented”. It would have been better bracketed by commas though.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
How is it not?
If you pretend someone has misused a phrase just so you can insult them it follows that you yet again expose yourself as a boorish and rude individual who revels in antisocial behaviour.
Well thank you. I feel
Well thank you. I feel thoroughly patronised by your eloquence.
Good to see egregiously and prima facie cropping up there.
I think your reading my failure to join in the attacking the police and drivers as support. That says more about where you are dont you think.
nicmason wrote:
You were supposed to learn something, but I’m not surprised you decided to miss the opportunity. Seriously though, look up the concept of normalisation of deviance. If your stance of ‘save criticism for really dangerous driving’ comes from a genuine desire to tackle bad driving in the most effective way possible, it will change your mind.
No, I’m reading your characterisation of everyone criticising the driver in this video as a bunch of ‘police hating roadcc lawyers’ as support for police and drivers. What do you think it says about you?
But it is not you having a
But it is not you having a “failure to attack the Police or drivers” that you post is it? In most cases it is willfully interpreting video in your own way to blame it on the cyclists only in most cases. The first one I noticed from you was when two cyclists were squeezed in a tight entrance to a roundabout by a car who decided (and failed to) overtake them both on approach. Your “defence” of the driver was they had got in front of BOTH of them and THEY should have then braked for him and given way. Not one mention of HC regs on not overtaking at approach to junctions etc and the video clearly showed the drivers front wheel was level with the first cyclist at best just as they both stopped.
Then of course there is the one with your infamous quote that you blatantly break the law when driving on mini roundabouts. How many posts on that thread did you do that were blaming the cyclist before finally admitting that driving on the wrong side of a roundabout was wrong but “we all do it near me”. (Normal reminder of Nic’s admittance of being a bad driver who should actually be banned from driving below). Of course it also blames the cyclist who was not on the wrong side of the island.
And then this article. No mention that they should have indicated and maybe set a better example of following road rules but making out an imaginary stopping of the manouvre which doesn’t actually occur.
I’m occupying a lot of space
I’m occupying a lot of space in your head.
nicmason wrote:
Just curious – have you considered occupying some in your own?
I’m very happy thanks. Im not
I’m very happy thanks. Im not the one turning quickly to general abuse.
nicmason wrote:
Not what I asked, but at least you seem to be consistent in not reading what you’re responding to.
Apparently not even reading your own comments either…
thats not personally
thats not personally addressing you though is it. Ive been abused personally several times on here disappointing but not suprising.
Poor you. I like to abuse
Poor you. I like to abuse people who admit dangerous driving myself. I mean they must be an arsehole to drive that badly and make the excuse of because it is easier for me to do that.
“arsehole” lovely.
“arsehole” lovely.
no, that wasn’t directed at
no, that wasn’t directed at you personally. That was directed at all dangerous drivers who go the wrong way around mini roundabouts. Did you not see the “they must be arseholes?”
nicmason wrote:
That’s pretty much the definition of general abuse, is it not?
Thanks – beat me to it.
Thanks – beat me to it.
Still not reading their own comments.
get a room boys.
get a room boys.
nicmason wrote:
Now that seems personal. What’s your excuse now, it’s ok because you weren’t addressing it to everyone?
Thats humour You should try
Thats humour You should try it some time. its quite helpful and can be used on the road as well.
nicmason wrote:
Is it, by golly? Good of you to flag it up otherwise it could easily be mistaken for ignorant rudeness. By the way, while you’re here, care to comment on the fact that when this video was originally posted you said “nothing to see here”, and how does that sit with the police officer giving me a full and unreserved apology and admitting he was entirely at fault?
By nothing to see I meant it
By nothing to see I meant it was hardly the life threatening incident that deserves ‘flagging up’ . But you carry on flagging up everything like a sort of video cycling tourettes and I’ll carry on commenting on it.
Deal ?
nicmason wrote:
I’m sure I asked you this before and you didn’t answer: do you actually ride a bike? I can’t actually recall you doing anything on this site but blindly defend the police and castigate cyclists.
He has mentioned “when I’m on
He has mentioned “when I’m on my bike I wouldn’t have done that manouvre” when criticising cyclists. Of course it could be along the lines of Boo’s stories and made up for “bantz”. ( a spoke broke but a van driver picked me up and we had a great chat about Top Lawyer Nick Freeman and how all cyclists should be taxed. Oh and how we chuckled about people who ride with actual friends are bad riders. Luckily that will never happen with me as I don’t have any.)
yes i do. Daily 28 mile per
yes i do. Daily 28 mile per day round trips to various parts of central london from canary wharf over to vauxhall. less often currently due to covid .
Plenty of time to see lots of bad driving cycling and walking. We’re all at it.
nicmason wrote:
I thought the people piling onto you were very funny. Why do you think you didn’t see it that way?
So if you write 20 replies
So if you write 20 replies saying you are a police hater that is wrong but if you make one reply saying you are all police haters that’s ok.
It’s pointless reading what you write now. The odd useful comment will be lost in the contrarian or irrelevant ones.
Can you believe that MD?
Can you believe that MD?
It is ok as I’ve sent that abuse to upto 40 people in one go so that is ok. But four of those have replied back and that isn’t fair.
That excuse is worse then his driving around mini roundabouts.
I just like to post you
I just like to post you admitting you should be taken off the road as you are such a bad driver.
ibr17xvii wrote:
the brake lights are visible between 4 and 6 seconds, no other lights are visible and the police car does not discernably move. If the cyclist had noticed this might be more likely to conclude the police car had just parked, than was about to pull out.
Pretty sure most people don’t apply the brakes before setting off.
If they were letting an oncoming car pass, why would they pull in on the right instead of the left?
wycombewheeler wrote:
I don’t think it’d be particularly relevant if they had been indicating (though it would have given Rendel a heads up and more time to brake) as pulling out straight in front of a cyclist and causing them to brake to avoid a collision is still dangerous. The lack of indicating just shows that they weren’t focussed on driving safely at all.
‘Pretty sure most people don
‘Pretty sure most people don’t apply the brakes before setting off.’
you’ve never driven an automatic then.
To think I was missing
To think I was missing boatsie…
TBH, nige reminds me more of
TBH, nige reminds me more of a Goatse.
JLasTSR wrote:
And the reason that their view was restricted – because they parked on the wrong side of the road…
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/parking.html
(The very first bullet point)
JLasTSR wrote:
“slow down” don’t you mean “come to a complete stop” (probably an emergency stop). Anything less than a complete stop would have resulted in a collision, if Rendell’s bike had been a car.
There lack of indication wouldn’t make a great deal of difference to my wanting to help them… except in so far as I can’t help them if I have no idea what their intentions are. Indicators aren’t there to be polite or to make requests, they are there only to inform. The only “indication” was when the brake lights came on briefly.
If this is the standard of
If this is the standard of highly trained police drivers, is it any wonder that they won’t take action on bad driving by anyone else?
eburtthebike wrote:
Ssssshhhhh! for gods sake! You’ll wake up Nic
An incident in London,
An incident in London, involving the police and Rendel… it’s already in the centre of the Venn diagram for attracting a particular kind of comment. I wouldn’t worry about waking anyone up.
markieteeee wrote:
Many fine comments on here from you and Badge and others but that’s my favourite. Yours at the centre of the Venn…
‘incident’ really ?
‘incident’ really ?
I’m unsure of your question
I’m unsure of your question but an incident is an occurrence, an event or something that happened.
As you ask the qualification
As you ask the qualification to drive a police car is (as I understand it) a driving license. There are additional skills and training depending on what you need to do when in it.
nicmason wrote:
Did I?
nicmason wrote:
How long will it take swlxder or whatever they are called to wake up? What if I say “wing mirror”?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xckk3j&ved=2ahUKEwi1wsii7MXzAhVFRkEAHc1NDU4Qo7QBegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3_UDZNDjcclpEF-3G6sTJt
TheBillder wrote:
a driving license.
— TheBillder How long will it take swlxder or whatever they are called to wake up? What if I say “wing mirror”? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xckk3j&ved=2ahUKEwi1wsii7MXzAhVFRkEAHc1NDU4Qo7QBegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3_UDZNDjcclpEF-3G6sTJt— nicmason
I think you have to say it three times into – er – a wing mirror 😀
Someone please lock the
Someone please lock the thread now.
hirsute wrote:
Here you go
UPDATE: Just had a call from
UPDATE: Just had a call from a senior officer at Brixton police station saying that he’d spoken to the officer in question and said officer “put his hands up and said 100% my mistake, it’s completely on him, didn’t realise the cyclist was there, totally apologise.” Offered to have the officer call me himself but I said as long as the officer was aware of the mistake and that he should be more careful in future I was happy with apology by proxy. Impressed with the speed with which the police dealt with this and the honesty of the apology.
Presumably all those saying the incident was down to my lack of manners, skill, roadcraft etc will now be apologising for their stupid remarks? Won’t hold my breath…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Nice one – good result.
Yes, it was very obvious they
Yes, it was very obvious they hadn’t seen you due to lack of indication, reaction only to the car in front, and then the final indicator left after they realised.
But I suppose when someone drives the wrong way around a roundabout regularly and thinks nothing of it, of course they wouldn’t think anything is wrong with a driver pulling out without indicating intentions first.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Where are you seeing that final indicator left – I only see a left indication prior to the left turn, long after they finished pulling out of the bay.
To be honest the problem started when the parked on the right hand side of the road, which seems like a very stupid thing to do (assuming the parking bays on the left hand side of the road was as empty as they were when the video was shot). It is lazy, inconsiderate and careless driving from start to finish. If they were driving one of my company vehicles (if I had such a thing), I’d want them to go on a course before getting behind the wheel of a company vehicle again.
That was the bit I was
That was the bit I was getting at. Rendal (or the car coming up) hadn’t been seen by the driver as they didn’t indicate. (Inspector Kev confirmed that Police Drivers are actually even more drummed in not to indicate if no one is around by their advanced instructors in another thread). Only towards the end of the video did they indicate their next intention to other road users which I believe was for Rendels benefit, after they finally spotted him.
Why you Brits allow parking
Why you Brits allow parking on the wrong side of the road is beyond me.. anywhere in Australia, it’s a traffic offence.
Nige’s finishing school comes
Nige’s finishing school comes good! Just goes to show you that if you act with a little bit of decorum, people return the favour and are more willing to go the extra mile for you.
Compare and contrast your response here to how people reacted to your previous persona – what a turnaround, and I’m really pleased you’ve come so far on your journey!
Once you improve a bit more, the police might even invite you round to give a staff talk or similar to help morale and cut road crime further.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
How would you know? Your entire persona here is calculated to belittle, goad and inflame the people you talk to. Are you saying it’s all so you can hold yourself up as an example of what not to do if you want a positive response from others?
Great result. Slightly
Great result. Slightly embarrassing for those who decided to make it all about you but I’m sure they won’t continue banging on and on.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Good – how it should be. Doesn’t take much. Not that the consequences here were comparable but this should be entered into evidence as to what “careless” driving looks like whenever that offence goes to trial. *EDIT And what accepting responsibility looks like e.g. it’s not getting your lawyer to make up a statement to read in court for you a year later *. (Those getting to a trial is for me almost proof of dangerous driving because anything that didn’t result in lots of injury with evident awful driving / failure to stop / drink / callous attitude doesn’t even get mentioned).
There are some people who
There are some people who should never receive the encouragement of a response
wtjs wrote:
Well, I don’t see anyone replying to you…
hawkinspeter wrote:
You did…
Captain Badger wrote:
No, I didn’t
hawkinspeter wrote:
No, I didn’t— Captain Badger
Oh, it must have been me, then. Sorry.
I was wondering why an old
I was wondering why an old NMOTD had hundreds of recent comments. Think this should probably be NMOTD 643, not 463!