"We introduced him to rugby": Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light; Tour de France stage 13: Bastille Day summit finish; Reaction to e-bike ban on popular path; Got a TT bike Uganda can use at World Champs? + more on the live blog

I am watching this thread intently. I can see the pros and cons. Struggling to decide which I support!
Personally, I try to live by "if its illegal, don't do it", but at the same time I know the law isn't as black and white as that.

I understand cycling through a red light at a pedestrian crossing if you are 100% sure there is no one crossing and it allows you to get clear of the maniac drivist that close passed you earlier (assuming you are not simply going to be close passed by them again further up the road!) I haven't had to do it - but I can imagine a scenario where it would be safer to do it.

However - I also know there are people out there that would push that beyond the limit. Their version of "100% sure there is no one crossing" would be "well I didn't hit them did I?"

Honestly can't decide.

HoldingOn wrote:

I am watching this thread intently. I can see the pros and cons. Struggling to decide which I support!
Personally, I try to live by "if its illegal, don't do it", but at the same time I know the law isn't as black and white as that.

I understand cycling through a red light at a pedestrian crossing if you are 100% sure there is no one crossing and it allows you to get clear of the maniac drivist that close passed you earlier (assuming you are not simply going to be close passed by them again further up the road!) I haven't had to do it - but I can imagine a scenario where it would be safer to do it.

However - I also know there are people out there that would push that beyond the limit. Their version of "100% sure there is no one crossing" would be "well I didn't hit them did I?"

Honestly can't decide.

I've been known to take liberties with red lights when I know the junction and can see it to be safe, but if a cyclist doesn't spot a copper lurking around the red light, then I'd say that the cyclist wasn't being careful.

HoldingOn wrote:

I understand cycling through a red light at a pedestrian crossing if you are 100% sure there is no one crossing and it allows you to get clear of the maniac drivist that close passed you earlier (assuming you are not simply going to be close passed by them again further up the road!) I haven't had to do it - but I can imagine a scenario where it would be safer to do it.

That's exactly the scenario I'm thinking of - I had cause to perform such a manoeuvre the other day. I only tend to do it for reasons of increasing safety for myself and others, rarely is it done to save time.

The issue is its not people carefully riding on the pavement or checking the crossing is clear. They're just riding like they don't give a damn about anyone else, the guy who rode into me last year and screwed up my shoulder for a few weeks as it took the full impact force, and im not built for rugby tackling, as I crossed on a green light for pedestrians only crossing didn't give a damn i was there or that he should stop, he didn't even apologise for it, he hit me,swore at me for getting in his way, I swore back and he rode off narrowly avoiding getting taken out by a taxi as the light was still red.

This isn't that dissimilar to the pspo on the Thames path, they wouldn't need to bring anything at all if people were riding their ebikes or escooters carefully or with consideration, but they don't I've sat outside that pub in the picture one lunchtime and seen enough near misses in a couple of hours to wonder why it took so long to crack down on it in the first place.

The ignorant twat got what he deserved.

.

The Police use rolling road blocks, Stingers and have used their own vehicles.

A criminal, using a bike as a getway ... gets demounted by the plod ... and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

Nope. Can't do it.
Sympathy for the victims of the criminals action - yes ... but not for the criminal.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Whilst not condoning the cyclists actions, the Police, who have an active ruling not to follow bikers breaking the laws of the road (look at the furore over the Ely incident or the video of the biker pulling wheelies next to the Police Car), don't seem to have the same reluctance to push unhelmeted cyclists of their transport. 

I posted a few weeks ago footage from the BBC of Police using their car to ram a youth off his bike who landed on his head and was lucky not to be very seriously injured. In that instance, the crimes were done off the bike and they were trying to get away on it which might make a difference but I hope to see Police ramming cars whilst they are doing 75mph alot more.

If a cyclist refuses to stop after being spotted running reds, then I'd say that a rugby tackle is reasonable force.

My only real issue with police vs cyclists is the cases I have seen where there was no attempt to stop the rider per HW code (i.e. signal from behind for the rider to pull over).

In this case the rider ignored 3 instructions to stop, which makes a hard stop far more reasonable, whereas I have seen several cases of police complaining about a rider 'blocking the road' (i.e. riding legally and correctly for safety) by pulling in front of the rider and slamming on the brakes - something that should only be done after other methods have been tried...

They could have just carried on following him, the guys head only has to hit a kerb and it's a fatality, is that proportionate force ? you can't control how he will fall if you rugby tackle him unless its at such slow speed you can just grab his arm anyway.

TBH, they could have just stated they stopped him, not the how and this thread, if it had even been reported, would have been a lot smaller. I don't think they tweet specifics for stopping other people.

"We punched him several times and tasered him". 

Brauchsel wrote:

Having lived in Manchester/Salford and having experienced the joys of the local scrotes, I'm going to tentatively have no sympathy for one of them riding through multiple reds and repeatedly refusing to stop when asked to. 

I'd suspect he was claiming that the police had no powers because of their helmetlessness, not his though. It's a weirdly common belief, and one I can readily hear being expressed in the sort of hectoring Manc tone that would make anyone want to rugby-tackle you. 

Are you sure? I immediately read that as someone who'd seen news coverage about the police holding back when chasing people on motorbikes/scooters if they (the person on the motorbike/scooter) didn't have a helmet on, supposedly because of a fear of the media coverage if that person was KSI as a consequence.

I've seen police using their vehicles to stop vehicles being driven by "wrong 'uns" on Police Motorway Traffic Interceptor Cops, though, so clearly they do sometimes 'teach rugby as a new sport' (is that going to become a new euphemish?) on dangerous vehicles and not just on Scofflaw Cyclists (TM).

Big difference between the speeds of a motorbike and a pushbike ... more risk of a fatality.
Similar with the scooter ... unlike a bike, mbike or car, there is nothing to safely strike; the only thing large enough to hit on a scooter is the rider, and again, it's down to risk to the scrotum.

The police are supposed to apprehend to allow for the process of Law, not to be the potential executioner.

Oldfatgit wrote:

... unlike a bike, mbike or car, there is nothing to safely strike; the only thing large enough to hit on a scooter is the rider, and again, it's down to risk to the scrotum. .

Oddly specific part of the anatomy for the police to target, reckon if they can hit my balls, they can certainy hit the scooter. But in the context of the police not stopping youths on scooters I assumed we were talking about 125cc scooters, not electric scooters.

No, not sure. I'd not heard your interpretation, but it makes sense. A very low-stakes version of holding a gun to your own head during a siege negotiation, I guess. 

Brauchsel wrote:

I'd suspect he was claiming that the police had no powers because of their helmetlessness, not his though. It's a weirdly common belief, and one I can readily hear being expressed in the sort of hectoring Manc tone that would make anyone want to rugby-tackle you. 

A "constable in uniform" can stop a bicycle (or motor vehicle) - ref.

I doubt even Mr Loophole would attempt to claim that not wearing a hat / helmet could be considered as not being in uniform.

Exactly. Why do they have to go on Twitter and boast about what they have done? It's not like they've busted an international drug cartel is it?

It's telling people a) that they're doing something and b) that they're doing something about low-level criminal twattery like this, presumably to dissuade low-level criminal twats. 

I'm enjoying tremendously the ones I'm seeing on FB with drivers of enormously expensive cars being nicked for not having front plates etc. Loads of enraged commenters there with the "not doing any harm, why not catch real criminals" boo-hooing: let's not be like them. 

perce wrote:

Exactly. Why do they have to go on Twitter and boast about what they have done? It's not like they've busted an international drug cartel is it?

perhaps it's their biggest triumph of the week. Or else crime is so low in the area this is all they have to focus on and we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing we are safe from crime in this area.

I just can't see it as proportionate policing in the absence of regular police actions taken on motorists speeding, going through red lights, using their mobile phones whilst driving, and close passing cyclists.

I feel that only thing that stops most car drivers from speeding is the car in front.  Cyclist are not the only vehicles that go through red lights, and the risk to other road users is orders of magnitude worse for a 2000kg car doing 35mph vs a <100kg bike doing 15mph.  Some motorists even accelerate if they see the light changing.  

I would like to think if the police had seen a driver going through three red lights and failing to stop, they wouldn't just turn a blind eye. (i know wtjs will have a different view of that!)

Agreed - the risks are much greater in a car than on a bike, but the risk to the offender is much greater on a bike than in a car. As OldFatGit says "The police are supposed to apprehend to allow for the process of Law, not to be the potential executioner."

It is why I think rugby tackling the cyclist to the ground was possibly a bit much, but I am also unsure how they would have otherwise stopped him. Boasting about it was definitely over the line.

Perhaps not something the police have already in their arsenal but a big karabiner, on the end of a rope, clipped to the frame would probably be a safer way of bringing a bike to a stop.
If they were able to rugby tackle they could certainly do that.

HoldingOn wrote:

I would like to think if the police had seen a driver going through three red lights and failing to stop, they wouldn't just turn a blind eye. (i know wtjs will have a different view of that!)

Right. Running a red light is no big deal. Running a red light in front of the police is a far worse crime that nearly always results in a stop: "contempt of cop."

I definitely didn't say it was "no big deal"