Can't say I have much sympathy for the police officer, surly to implement the law you have to at least know what your implementing. He just got caught out by someone who knows the ins and outs of the law better than him, he should have realised this given the cyclist a warning instead he lost his cool and tried to knock the camera.
He did - red light = illegal, penalty is a fine. Why does he need to quote the law word for word? Is he a lawyer? Is he a judge? No, in simple terms, if you are doing illegal, the police man needs to know the appropriate action to take. This is the most important part of his job. Now if he is doing something completely ridiculous then sure, be an ass - this guy saw a a cyclist run a red light, tried to hand him the punishment in law, and got kicked in the nuts for doing so. Bravo - I hope the next time that guy needs serious police help in an emergency they make sure to quote him all the required results of what will come of it or whatever pointless crap they can think of before lending their assistance. You know they wont though, because police help where it is required, as opposed to hinder.
I'm not disputing that going through a red light is illegal and the guys a self righteous idiot It is the way the officer went about the situation, It was pretty obvious the cyclist was going to refuse to give his details so as to avoid a fine. Knowing that the officer had the choice to either allow the cyclist to leave or arrest him under section 24 of PACE. (Most likly not cost effective and the cyclist could request to read PACE until he was satisfied which could be a long time) Instead the officer continues an argument he obviously isn't going to win becomes agitated and tries to knock the guys camera. Hence if he had given a warning he would have maintained a position of authority and avoided the whole situation.
Depends on the context, if you where buying alcohol and as you left the store the police simple stopped you and asked you for I.D as they thought you were not of age or possibly using fake I.D. They could ask you to simply ascertain this. I tend to comply with the police (though I have limited contact with them). Not to mention it is the law when being served alcohol to ask for I.D and No I.D No Sale.
I thought there was a caveat to what I was remembering. Tbh, I don't get the big deal with carrying a driving license, or provisional if you're 17 or not a driver. It's accepted as ID everywhere, and let's face it, you don't need ID for anything you do (Legally) below the age of 17 anyway. Some Police officers are jebends admittedly (Like the one I saw yesterday on the A14, speeding without blues and twos on), but the vast majority are reasonable people. Some are outright badass (Does anyone else remember the .gif of a Police officer getting hit by a stolen car, getting up, and chasing the offender down the road?). I would assume, though, if you were asked to prove who you were and you did everything reasonable to prove that you had no ID on you, that a sane officer would either take you at your word, or provide you with a case number and a time frame to visit your local station with some form of ID.
The one and only time I've been stopped and asked for ID by the police she was holding a sub machine gun (or something like that - not au fait with guns ). Did I argue or refuse to confirm who I was? Hell no!
I don't understand why people refuse to identify themselves anyway. Especially when it's not just some random bloke, or she-bloke, off the street asking. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I'd rather they knew who I was and what I was doing than thinking I was some nutjob that needed to spend some time in a prison.
If you start lying to the police, or avoid their questions then of course you're going to be putting yourself in a more uncomfortable position. If they stop you and ask questions just answer them. If you start avoiding the answers they'll spot it immediately and know you're either hiding something or are simply a jumped up little sh*t who thinks himself above the laws of the land. Either way it's not going to end well. Only complete and utter ar$eholes and the guilty would refuse to deal with the police or treat them with the contempt such as that from the "Am I compelled to do that?" video. Police officers are just people like all of us. Some of them are wonderful, some of them are complete tits. Just talk to them normally and help them finish their enquires with the minimum amount of fuss.
So in your opinion every police officer should be able to quote every single law of the land verbatim? Do you have a clue as to how impossible that would be? A police officer needs to be able to use their judgement and lets face it, doesn't need to be able to reel off every single sentence and paragraph from the statute book to enforce a "Stop at red lights" law. If you think it's okay to break the law or refuse to corporate with law enforcement officers unless they can remember hundreds of thousands of words then it sounds to me that you still have some growing up to do. 1. Learn the difference between right and wrong. 2. Accept that the police are usually only trying to prevent the 'wrongs'. 3. Live your life. If you refuse to give your details then you'll come across as if hiding something or as an ar$ehole troublemaker
I'd agree that expecting them to be able to quote every laws detail is a bit much. I don't even believe that Lawyers do that (Which would explain the legions of textbooks they all seem to have..), so expecting a fellow, or lady, to memorise everything is pretty over the top. I was always of the understanding that you could be arrested on suspicion of breaking a law, and only when you were charged were they required to provide the whys and wherefors of which law and in what way were you breaking it. I don't understand why it's somehow considered a "right" to not cooperate with a Police officer. They're doing their job to the best of their ability, and surely you making their job easier by being a civil human being is going to make them feel less compelled to put you in a little box for a night.
I'm in the Police, and it's nice to hear some decent comments rather than uneducated nonsense. We really don't know the circumstances surrounding that video. The officer made a bad move, no one is denying that. With his continued refusal to provide details he should have just been arrested (s.24 PACE), if that is how the Officer wanted to proceed. With myself being into all sorts of cycle sports (downhill, BMX, etc) I wouldn't have bothered even speaking to him, unless he done something utterly dangerous. Unfortunately there are a lot of Officers that don't use discretion and will 'stick people on' for anything they see. On topic; No requirement to carry identification and no requirement to produce identification to Police. In a vehicle there is a requirement to provide vehicle documents, but not ID. We don't need to use lights and sirens. You have no idea what the Officer was doing or going to, so calling him a 'jebend' is a bit harsh. There could have been a burglary in progress right nearby and turning up with flashing lights and sirens would obvious scare him off and possibly hinder us catching him. Every Police vehicle is equipped with a journey data recorder, that records every little detail of our driving. If we were speeding for no reason then we'd be stuck on for it.
I don't think I said that to be fair so please don't take parts of my post out of context. Of course it would be ridiculous to assume a copper should know every law out there word for word. I do think it is quite reasonable to assume that a police officer can explain a law that he is trying to enforce, otherwise how is every citizen supposed to understand what is going on? Granted most will understand, but there are plenty of vulnerable people out there that would not understand what is going on a lot of the time. Explaining doesn't mean quoting the whole ****ing thing word for word, by the way. I know full well the consequences of how one deals with the police, and let me assure you, 'fessing up every iota of detail to them to "coporate" (I assume you mean co-operate) has just as much chance as landing you in more trouble than less, as I once learnt. I respect every police officer out there on the basis that I do not know one from t'other and the majority are genuine hard work servants to peace - but I sure as hell respect my rights to keep quiet too, and sorry to be selfish here, but in situations where it's them vs. me, my ass is more important rather than indulging them.
It now sounds like you completely agree (Which is cool). I too feel that explaining the law is the important bit rather than quoting it verbatim. It's 100% important that the police officers can tell the difference between right and wrong and what they can and should do about it. In my IMHO it's not important that they can quote the any aspect of the law word for word as long as they are enforcing the laws correctly. Being able to act correctly, fairly and reasonably is key, reeling of law book quotes is not going to help those who are genuinely confused as to why they are being questioned. But I don't think we're talking about the confused, we're talking about the belligerent - and there's some of those who won't corporate out of principle.
That does not sit very comfortably with me. I appreciate you have to act with your own discretion and prioritize what your dealing with but a cyclist running a red light is an offence that risks other drivers and pedestrians well fare and should be punished IMO. I doubt very much you would let a motorcyclist or a car driver off with running a red light.
I must confess, I'm not entirely sure why being into downhill mountain biking and other cycling based sports makes it okay for cyclists to run red lights? I mean, sure, cyclists get a lot of stick, but a lot of them do incredibly dangerous things, and even more of them don't wear helmets (Which is a massive pet peeve of mine). As for the officer that was speeding past me - There was no turning off for a good thirty miles. If he was going to a burglary, that would surprise me greatly. Of course, he could have been going somewhere, but I genuinely doubt it. Unless his speedo was incorrectly calibrated (As I understand most, if not all, police vehicles have their speedometers calibrated to be more accurate as to actual speed rather than us general road users - Correct me if I'm wrong?). Interesting to know your vehicles have "black boxes" as it were. Completely off topic, but do you happen to know if you have auctions for your old police vehicles?
And wear ipod headphones while cycling through London. That's not just stupid but a danger to them and ALL other road users, even the pedestrians.
Most forces do send them to auction or sometimes scrap depending on the valuation. I've seen them in motor auctions down london way before. I can certainly say you'd not want to buy one that was a patrol car! They all had holes in the top from where the light bar and aerials had been removed, no stereo, damaged trim internally where stuff had been removed, cut internal electrics where looms were added/joined, scuffed alloys and the outsides were covered in sticky marks where the reflective markings had been removed. Not to mention they will have been driven to the limits all their lives. I can only assume the stuff they removed was worth more than the car by that point as no care was taken to the car when it was removed.
Hence why I said, 'unless he done something utterly dangerous' Don't presume you know anything about how I use my discretion. I am very lenient with motorists. I've witnessed upwards of 10-12 vehicles blatantly going through red lights and only once have I prosecuted someone, and even that was because he was a professional driver who was also on his mobile phone at the time. Fair enough. I don't know the A14. I am merely stating that by law, there is no requirement for use to use blue lights and sirens as long as we can justify why not. I presume you are talking about a marked car? If it is a vehicle capable of driving on flash then yes, the speedo should be well calibrated. All sorts goes to auction. Police vehicles, seized vehicles, etc. This isn't so much the case any more around my way. The light bars and aerials leave no damage (stuck on aerials and roof rack bars), the stereos are kept and replaced, the looms are replaced and the reflective 'livery' is more modern stuff that can be removed without leaving any marks or stickiness. The alloys won't be brilliant, they will have high mileage for their age and will have been driven hard, but at the same time are very well serviced and looked after mechanically. I'd make sure the 'dirty' seat in the back is thoroughly cleaned though...
For showing them ID, walking down the street you aren't obliged to as far as I know as if you don't have any ID they can't do anything about it. Its like if you're in a car that gets pulled over as a passenger you're not obliged to show any form of ID etc as its the driver they have pulled (unless as stated above they have a suspicion you are carrying anything illegal etc.) I know the last part isnt part of the question but still. Oh also regards police and knowing all the law's there are so many its unreasonable to assume they know them all however I do agree they should have a understanding of their powers when it comes to stopping people etc. Edit - Also based on my understanding of PACE, to have to provide your name etc then there must be reasonable suspicion for them to arrest you etc as they iirc Code A of pace regards stop and searches also mentions for them to stop you, they must suspect you are / have / about to commit an offence, correct me if I'm wrong this is just my understanding from what a lecturer was saying.
