Police Driver Undertakes Cyclist, Head Camera Captures Everything

Yes, always have everything recorded on video when you are on the road. Nowadays, the number of road bullies are ever increasing and by watching this video, we can say that those bullies are not only civilians, but law enforcement officers as well. This ongoing issue is especially true for smaller cars because larger cars or more expensive cars like Audi, BMW and all which are faster tend to overtake slower cars all the time, and sometimes by endangering others. Install a video camera in your car or motorcycle too so that you have proof should any mishap befall you.

Can't believe that no-one hasn't spotted the other offences occuring!!

The officer is not wearing a seatbelt!!

He was a tad breathless. Mind he probably rlj'd to keep up and make a point soley because it was the polis

The video has been edited....a big gap in it..

The real clue to this is the section where the cyclist says to the policeman that he wasn't going straight on, he was turning right but came after the police car.

Watch the clip again. The police car goes through an amber light at the junction of Kennington Road. The video cuts to the confrontation between the two at the junction of Waterloo Road, half a mile away.

So the cyclist stopped at the traffic lights for twenty seconds, got back up to speed, and cycled another half mile or so (90 seconds or so), and still managed to catch a police car that didn't stop at the first set of lights!

Ummm....

It could be, BUT, I doubt it. The vehicle's that any member of the royal family travel in have certain tell tale number plates.

This one does not appear to be one, BUT, is a Met Police SEG Range Rover

Was it Prince Andrew perhaps?

I think what I said above has just been confirmed to me in this part of the statement.

Quote:

A Scotland Yard spokesman said they were not prepared to discuss which unit the officer was with, adding that his car was identification enough instead of alphanumeric shoulder identification.

The spokesman said: ‎"Officers have viewed the clip and, having spoken with the driver of the police vehicle, we are satisfied that no further action needs to be taken.

"The police vehicle involved was on operational duty at the time - we are not able to discuss further.

I know the range rover in front is SO14 from making out part of the blurry number. Its one of the vehicle's that is shipped up here for use around Balmoral. Also the driver in the marked one is known to a member of my family who supplies the royal family with certain items.

So being that its royal protection. I guess the marked one had to keep with the unmarked for whatever reason. That's why he just drove off at the lights rather than carrying on his conversation.

Because he's a police office the driver has merely been "spoken to" but that's all:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-cut-up-by-police-driver-tu...

Once again, power turns a pathetic knob into something much worse.

Undertaking isn't allowed. Driving too close to a cyclist isn't allowed. The cop's number isn't visible, which isn't allowed. The police vehicle appeared to be driving in excess of the speed limit, which isn't allowed unless it's an emergency. The police vehicle isn't allowed to be in the bus lane, unless it's an emergency.

I would hope the cop at the very least gets an official warning for his driving. Of course if that was an ordinary driver, the person would be getting a number of penalty points for that string of driving offences.

I hope the ones on the forum aren't like that

He had no good reason to be in the bus lane.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/redroutes/963.aspx

"Inconveniencing" him? How? He had to stop at the lights. No blue lights so obviously not rushing back to the nick for doughnuts.

I thought deliberately undertaking for your own advantage (as opposed to the 'my queue is moving more quickly' scenario) was illegal.

If I was a reactionary individual of no significance whatsoever I could froth about all police occifers are therefore inconsiderate, rude and arrogant law-breakers* and stating to my disinterested readers that "the only good coppper is a dead copper". But I'm not a nobody editor or a cheap hack or sad old has-been desperate for attention, so I won't.

* I'm hoping they aren't. Does anybody know one that isn't?

the police driver says that the cyclist is in the wrong lane! so what was he doing driving in a BUS lane!

it's the manner of the undertaking, rather than the fact of it, that's at fault

Don't want to be undertaken? Stay in the inside lane. And if as he says he was actually going right at the lights, then i'm presuming he is indicating, which would allow the police driver to see undertaking would be safe.

Ha class !

The reporter from the rag that posted the article obviously doesn't like the Police.

The Police vehicle appeared from nowhere ? of course it did it came from behind and when that happens you never see them until they go past regardless of what side they pass you on !

The sound on my laptop isn't working so i cant comment on what was said between them.

I love his arguement "you were in the wrong lane to go straight on"

SO, I went back and watched the video.....Which lane did the driver use to go straight on? Thats correct, the right turn lane.

He also seems to be travelling in convoy with a SO14 unit in the Range Rover in front of him.

The cyclist should consult with The Cycling Lawyer. Don't let this arrogant scumbag get away with it.

Arrogant prick