Undercover police posing as cyclists catch trucker for driving too close to bike

[Bod]

A lorry driver has become one of the first people to be prosecuted for
driving too close to cyclists after being caught by a plain-clothed
police biker.

Officers posed as cyclists in Birmingham and the black country to try
and catch drivers putting bikers lives at risk.

The 60-year-old driver was taken to court and ordered to pay £1,038 in
fines and costs. He was also given five points on his licence for the
manoeuvre in Park Lane West, Tipton, last November after being found
court at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.

He was among the first motorists in the country to be taken to court
after the operation to protect cyclists from ‘close passes’.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/12/undercover-police-posing-as-cyclists-catch-trucker-for-driving-too-close-to-bike-6772386/

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:03:40 +0100, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> A lorry driver has become one of the first people to be prosecuted for
> driving too close to cyclists after being caught by a plain-clothed
> police biker.
>
> Officers posed as cyclists in Birmingham and the black country to try
> and catch drivers putting bikers lives at risk.

In what way is a policeman on a bicycle 'posed as' a cyclist, rather
than being a cyclist?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Bod]

Blimey, is it national pedants day already!

[JNugent]

Can anyone quote a section of a Road Traffic Act which specifies this
"1.5 metres"?

Note also the quoted rules in the story:

QUOTE:
When overtaking motorists should give ‘at least’ as much room to
cyclists and horse riders as they would another car, according to the
Highway Code.
ENDQUOTE

And 1.5 metres is a fair bit more than another car will or can be given
in many circumstances.

Does this 1.5 meter "rule" (wherever it is alleged to come from) not
apply when a cyclist pulls alongside a vehicle stopped at traffic
lights? If not, why not? Surely the drivers of vehicles overtaken by
cyclists have just as much right to expect the same safety margin and
the same courtesy that cyclists expect from everyone else on the planet?

QUOTE:
Rules for all road users (including cyclists)

If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, *slowing* *down* if necessary to let the vehicle pass.

*Never* obstruct drivers who wish to pass.
ENDQUOTE

[Incubus]

On 12/07/2017 11:03, Bod wrote:

Why don't the Police 'pose' as pedestrians to catch cyclists riding on
pavements?

Better yet, why aren't they focussing on violent offence and thefts?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Posing as a cyclist means that you ride a kid's toy with your mouth wide
open and a gormless look on your face.
Oh, and you also need to shave your legs ................. ffs.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:39:20 -0000 (UTC)
Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:03:40 +0100, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > A lorry driver has become one of the first people to be prosecuted
> > for driving too close to cyclists after being caught by a
> > plain-clothed police biker.
> >
> > Officers posed as cyclists in Birmingham and the black country to
> > try and catch drivers putting bikers lives at risk.
>
> In what way is a policeman on a bicycle 'posed as' a cyclist, rather
> than being a cyclist?
>

That's what I thought. I imagine the officers chosen for this duty were
already cyclists, and might even have been riding their own bikes.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:45:16 +0100
Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why don't the Police 'pose' as pedestrians to catch cyclists riding
> on pavements?

Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are mostly
just an annoyance that other people like to exaggerate - they rarely
kill anyone, much more often a case of "nearly hit someone". Where it
is an acknowledged problem, in places like Cambridge, they have
occasional crack-downs on pavement cycling and bikes with no lights,
but that's all it merits really.

>
> Better yet, why aren't they focussing on violent offence and thefts?

Getting hit by a ton or thirty of metal can be pretty violent. It
regularly causes serious injury or death to people who were doing
nothing wrong (and others who may have contributed to their own
misfortune, but still mostly didn't deserve it). Don't forget it's not
just cyclists, but also pedestrians and motorists, who are regularly
hit by truck drivers that didn't leave enough room or allow for their
blind-spots at junctions, crossings and even on the motorway.
I also note that two of the drivers stopped in the W.Mids campaign had
their licenses immediately suspended at the roadside because they
couldn't see well enough to be driving - that has to benefit every
other road user regardless of mode.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:45:16 +0100
> Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't the Police 'pose' as pedestrians to catch cyclists riding
>> on pavements?
>
> Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are mostly
> just an annoyance that other people like to exaggerate - they rarely
> kill anyone, much more often a case of "nearly hit someone". Where it
> is an acknowledged problem, in places like Cambridge, they have
> occasional crack-downs on pavement cycling and bikes with no lights,
> but that's all it merits really.

My long dead mother used to walk to the shop. She was very fail and could
not see very well.
If some footpath riding cunt of a cyclist had hit her, the cyclist would
have killed her and then smartly fucked off, as scum cyclists tend to do.

But then again, in your own words:

"Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are mostly

just an annoyance".

You disgust me.


>>

[JNugent]

+1.

And that's mainly for the callous disingenuity of the "argument".

Cyclists on footways are utter turds. Try as one might, there is no
getting around that.

[TMS320]

On 12/07/17 13:55, JNugent wrote:
> On 12/07/2017 11:03, Bod wrote:
>
>> A lorry driver has become one of the first people to be prosecuted for
>> driving too close to cyclists after being caught by a plain-clothed
>> police biker.
>>
>> Officers posed as cyclists in Birmingham and the black country to try
>> and catch drivers putting bikers lives at risk.
>>
>> The 60-year-old driver was taken to court and ordered to pay £1,038 in
>> fines and costs. He was also given five points on his licence for the
>> manoeuvre in Park Lane West, Tipton, last November after being found
>> court at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.
>>
>> He was among the first motorists in the country to be taken to court
>> after the operation to protect cyclists from ‘close passes’.
>>
>> http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/12/undercover-police-posing-as-cyclists-catch-trucker-for-driving-too-close-to-bike-6772386/
>
> Can anyone quote a section of a Road Traffic Act which specifies this
> "1.5 metres"?
>
> Note also the quoted rules in the story:
>
> QUOTE:
> When overtaking motorists should give ‘at least’ as much room to
> cyclists and horse riders as they would another car, according to the
> Highway Code.
> ENDQUOTE
>
> And 1.5 metres is a fair bit more than another car will or can be given
> in many circumstances.

The picture shows 1.5m between wheels. 1.5m is certainly not a "fair bit
more..." at mirror/elbow height.

> Does this 1.5 meter "rule" (wherever it is alleged to come from) not
> apply when a cyclist pulls alongside a vehicle stopped at traffic
> lights? If not, why not? Surely the drivers of vehicles overtaken by
> cyclists have just as much right to expect the same safety margin and
> the same courtesy that cyclists expect from everyone else on the planet?

You should try and work out the difference in the dynamics of passing
things that are moving and things that are stationary.

> QUOTE:
> Rules for all road users (including cyclists)
>
> If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
> speed, *slowing* *down* if necessary to let the vehicle pass.
>
> *Never* obstruct drivers who wish to pass.
> ENDQUOTE

And?

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:32:05 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:45:16 +0100
>> Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't the Police 'pose' as pedestrians to catch cyclists riding
>>> on pavements?
>>
>> Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are mostly
>> just an annoyance that other people like to exaggerate - they rarely
>> kill anyone, much more often a case of "nearly hit someone". Where it
>> is an acknowledged problem, in places like Cambridge, they have
>> occasional crack-downs on pavement cycling and bikes with no lights,
>> but that's all it merits really.
>
> My long dead mother used to walk to the shop. She was very fail and could
> not see very well.

> If some footpath riding cunt of a cyclist had hit her, the cyclist would
> have killed her and then smartly fucked off, as scum cyclists tend to do.
>

I'm sorry to hear of your poor mother's acci - oh wait it never happened, you just made it up!

> But then again, in your own words:
> "Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are mostly
> just an annoyance".
>
> You disgust me.
>
>>>
>
>
>

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Christie]

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:45:16 +0100
>> Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't the Police 'pose' as pedestrians to catch cyclists riding
>>> on pavements?
>>
>> Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are mostly
>> just an annoyance that other people like to exaggerate - they rarely
>> kill anyone, much more often a case of "nearly hit someone". Where it
>> is an acknowledged problem, in places like Cambridge, they have
>> occasional crack-downs on pavement cycling and bikes with no lights,
>> but that's all it merits really.
>
>My long dead mother used to walk to the shop. She was very fail and could
>not see very well.
>If some footpath riding cunt of a cyclist had hit her, the cyclist would
>have killed her and then smartly fucked off, as scum cyclists tend to do.

In other words, your mother never encountered one of these 'scum
cyclists' just, in fact, as you never have... Sixty odd years and
counting, still waiting for a 'thug cyclist' to challenge you, you and
your 5" chisel in your back pocket at the ready.

Do they do Mindfulness courses round your way? They can teach you to
deal with life's actual events instead of obsessing over perceived
possibilities. You know, so that you can live in the true 'now' -
without regretting the past or fearing the future.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I insure my house against the possibility of it burning down etc.
I guess that in your dim eyes I'm being over cautious.
Next time think before you type your bollocks.

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:32:05 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> >
> > Because people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements are
> > mostly just an annoyance that other people like to exaggerate -
> > they rarely kill anyone, much more often a case of "nearly hit
> > someone". Where it is an acknowledged problem, in places like
> > Cambridge, they have occasional crack-downs on pavement cycling
> > and bikes with no lights, but that's all it merits really.
>
> My long dead mother used to walk to the shop. She was very fail and
> could not see very well.
> If some footpath riding cunt of a cyclist had hit her, the cyclist
> would have killed her and then smartly fucked off, as scum cyclists
> tend to do.

But they didn't, thus providing yet another data point confirming the
hypothesis that people riding bicycles inconsiderately on pavements

are mostly just an annoyance that other people like to exaggerate -

they rarely kill anyone.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I did say "If".

[James Wilkinson Sword]

It's too difficult for them. A traffic officer who'd stopped me for a routine safety check actually said to me, "I'm not qualified to solve real crimes".

--
Q: What's the difference between an Irish funeral and an Irish wedding?
A: One less drunk.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:03:40 +0100, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> A lorry driver has become one of the first people to be prosecuted for
> driving too close to cyclists after being caught by a plain-clothed
> police biker.
>
> Officers posed as cyclists in Birmingham and the black country to try
> and catch drivers putting bikers lives at risk.
>
> The 60-year-old driver was taken to court and ordered to pay £1,038 in
> fines and costs. He was also given five points on his licence for the
> manoeuvre in Park Lane West, Tipton, last November after being found
> court at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.

So how did they catch up with him? Must be damn fit police.

> He was among the first motorists in the country to be taken to court
> after the operation to protect cyclists from ‘close passes’.

I drive and cycle, and I find it absurd that cars leave such a *large* gap. I only need a foot or two when I'm cycling, because I cycle in a straight line. Same gap as cars leave each other when passing in the *opposite direction*.

There's enough room on most roads for a car to overtake a cyclist when there's another car coming the other way, yet so many morons want to drive right over the other side of the road to overtake the cyclist, somehow imagining he's the width of a car.

> http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/12/undercover-police-posing-as-cyclists-catch-trucker-for-driving-too-close-to-bike-6772386/

That's called entrapment, the police should all be fired. You can't just go around encouraging people to break the law. Imagine I placed my wallet in front of someone on a bus, filmed him take it, then reported him to the police, the police would laugh at me.

--
If a cat joined the Red Cross, would it become a First-Aid Kit?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Yeah, like fuck he did. This would be the time that you got done for
defective exhaust. This because you could not afford to have it fixed. Get a
job ya little wanker.
Why must you always tell lies? You little piece of shit

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Prick.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:19:01 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:]
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

[ordinary post omitted, just the abusive reply left in]

>
> Yeah, like fuck he did. This would be the time that you got done for
> defective exhaust. This because you could not afford to have it fixed. Get a
> job ya little wanker.
> Why must you always tell lies? You little piece of shit

Take a calming bike ride; it'll help no end.

[Peter Keller]

I agree.
He told me to 'grow up'.
I absolutely have no desire to "do so" and become like it.

[Peter Keller]

And he called me a moron.
I took it as a compliment as it came from him.
He said it wqs no a compliment.
How dare he dictate how I take his compliments?