Police Interceptors tonight
Discussion
eybic said:
We have been asked to update this thread stating there was no further action taken against the Volvo driver.
That's great.A) that no action was taken and
B) that someone saw fit to inform us of the outcome!
I've just watched the clip and IMO the volvo driver shouldn't have pulled out but, but the policeman also should not have gone for a risky overtake, without blues, for a non-important job. I think because if this was two members of the public the blame should be 50:50, but because the copper is a copper, and is a trained pursuit driver he should know better than the general public, and so the blame shifts on to him for aggrevating a situation that didn't need to occur.
Scuffers said:
eybic said:
We have been asked to update this thread stating there was no further action taken against the Volvo driver.
out of interest, by who?
It's nice when threads like this are updated. 
TheBALDpuma said:
That's great.
A) that no action was taken and
B) that someone saw fit to inform us of the outcome!
I've just watched the clip and IMO the volvo driver shouldn't have pulled out but, but the policeman also should not have gone for a risky overtake, without blues, for a non-important job. I think because if this was two members of the public the blame should be 50:50, but because the copper is a copper, and is a trained pursuit driver he should know better than the general public, and so the blame shifts on to him for aggrevating a situation that didn't need to occur.
I remember watching this. I agree with you almost but I disagree with you about the Volvo not pulling out, where else could he have gone? Stop on a slip road? Use the hard shoulder and probably still get pulled over anyway? A) that no action was taken and
B) that someone saw fit to inform us of the outcome!
I've just watched the clip and IMO the volvo driver shouldn't have pulled out but, but the policeman also should not have gone for a risky overtake, without blues, for a non-important job. I think because if this was two members of the public the blame should be 50:50, but because the copper is a copper, and is a trained pursuit driver he should know better than the general public, and so the blame shifts on to him for aggrevating a situation that didn't need to occur.
I've had a few people trying to overtake me just coming onto a motorway. I usually just start moving over a bit quicker into the gap I've given myself if I think they're trying to get past me.
Edited by Swanny87 on Monday 14th July 14:40
I saw the episode, and have always wondered what happened to the Volvo driver.
Nice to know that no further action was taken.
I'm only 16, and don't have a driving license or anything, but it is safe to say if I was in that situation as the Volvo driver, I would have moved slightly to the right (putting the offside over the line) on the slip road to block the copper off, but not so much it would seem intentional. If I was pulled by him, I would just explain that I must've misjudged the closing speed and thought it would be okay for me to begin positioning to merge onto the carriageway.
If he then told me that he was in a rush and I pulled a stupid move blah blah, I would have just asked him why he wasn't using the blue lights if he was in a rush, because surely any situation requiring hurried driving would have increased safety if he made his presence known.
If he then told me he had to be undercover or whatever nonsense he'd chuck out for not using the lights, I would just reply with "If you want to drive undercover, then surely you shouldn't be putting yourself and I into a situation where the risk of a collision was massively increased, just so you wouldn't have to overtake me when it was safe to do so, i.e. after we've both merged onto the D/C and the right lane was clear for you to overtake me?"
Nice to know that no further action was taken.
I'm only 16, and don't have a driving license or anything, but it is safe to say if I was in that situation as the Volvo driver, I would have moved slightly to the right (putting the offside over the line) on the slip road to block the copper off, but not so much it would seem intentional. If I was pulled by him, I would just explain that I must've misjudged the closing speed and thought it would be okay for me to begin positioning to merge onto the carriageway.
If he then told me that he was in a rush and I pulled a stupid move blah blah, I would have just asked him why he wasn't using the blue lights if he was in a rush, because surely any situation requiring hurried driving would have increased safety if he made his presence known.
If he then told me he had to be undercover or whatever nonsense he'd chuck out for not using the lights, I would just reply with "If you want to drive undercover, then surely you shouldn't be putting yourself and I into a situation where the risk of a collision was massively increased, just so you wouldn't have to overtake me when it was safe to do so, i.e. after we've both merged onto the D/C and the right lane was clear for you to overtake me?"
Swanny87 said:
I remember watching this. I agree with you almost but I disagree with you about the Volvo not pulling out, where else could he have gone? Stop on a slip road? Use the hard shoulder and probably still get pulled over anyway?
I've had a few people trying to overtake me just coming onto a motorway. I usually just start moving over a bit quicker into the gap I've given myself if I think they're trying to get past me.
To my eye the volvo see's the copper nice and early and would have plenty of time to anticipate what was going to happen, come off the throttle and there would have been plenty of space for the BMW to pass and the Volvo get to get onto the A1. I.e. its best to avoid a situation arising even if morally you're in the right anyway. I'd have blocked him too though.I've had a few people trying to overtake me just coming onto a motorway. I usually just start moving over a bit quicker into the gap I've given myself if I think they're trying to get past me.
Edited by Swanny87 on Monday 14th July 14:40
TheInsanity1234 said:
I saw the episode, and have always wondered what happened to the Volvo driver.
Nice to know that no further action was taken.
I'm only 16, and don't have a driving license or anything, but it is safe to say if I was in that situation as the Volvo driver, I would have moved slightly to the right (putting the offside over the line) on the slip road to block the copper off, but not so much it would seem intentional. If I was pulled by him, I would just explain that I must've misjudged the closing speed and thought it would be okay for me to begin positioning to merge onto the carriageway.
If he then told me that he was in a rush and I pulled a stupid move blah blah, I would have just asked him why he wasn't using the blue lights if he was in a rush, because surely any situation requiring hurried driving would have increased safety if he made his presence known.
If he then told me he had to be undercover or whatever nonsense he'd chuck out for not using the lights, I would just reply with "If you want to drive undercover, then surely you shouldn't be putting yourself and I into a situation where the risk of a collision was massively increased, just so you wouldn't have to overtake me when it was safe to do so, i.e. after we've both merged onto the D/C and the right lane was clear for you to overtake me?"
You'll go far in life.Nice to know that no further action was taken.
I'm only 16, and don't have a driving license or anything, but it is safe to say if I was in that situation as the Volvo driver, I would have moved slightly to the right (putting the offside over the line) on the slip road to block the copper off, but not so much it would seem intentional. If I was pulled by him, I would just explain that I must've misjudged the closing speed and thought it would be okay for me to begin positioning to merge onto the carriageway.
If he then told me that he was in a rush and I pulled a stupid move blah blah, I would have just asked him why he wasn't using the blue lights if he was in a rush, because surely any situation requiring hurried driving would have increased safety if he made his presence known.
If he then told me he had to be undercover or whatever nonsense he'd chuck out for not using the lights, I would just reply with "If you want to drive undercover, then surely you shouldn't be putting yourself and I into a situation where the risk of a collision was massively increased, just so you wouldn't have to overtake me when it was safe to do so, i.e. after we've both merged onto the D/C and the right lane was clear for you to overtake me?"
speedking31 said:
I agree. I find that "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" is far more likely to achieve the result that I want 
I've never been comfortable with that. I just prefer a polite (on both sides) conversation. TheInsanity1234 said:
Elroy Blue said:
You'll go far in life.
I have thing thing which, despite its name, is exceedingly uncommon. It's called "common sense".It doesn't seem to be present, even in policemen.
Sadly.
Yet another f**k up...
Last week they nailed a guy with a pickup truck loaded with carrots for no insurance etc etc. (with their usual "oh how clever we are" attitude)
this week, they have to publically apologize for getting it wrong and infact his insurance was valid.
this begs two questions:
1) who the hell edits this programme? if I were the Police management, I would want to make 110% sure that every case featured is rock solid and shows my officers in the best possible light.
the way the programme comes across, some of the officers come across as chav's with badges, usually displaying a really poor attitude, surely if you were the chief constable, you would NOT want them being shown like this?
2) At what point does a victim of this programme, having been paraded on national TV as god knows what and basically having their reputation trashed have any real comeback on the police/TV production co?
Last week they nailed a guy with a pickup truck loaded with carrots for no insurance etc etc. (with their usual "oh how clever we are" attitude)
this week, they have to publically apologize for getting it wrong and infact his insurance was valid.
this begs two questions:
1) who the hell edits this programme? if I were the Police management, I would want to make 110% sure that every case featured is rock solid and shows my officers in the best possible light.
the way the programme comes across, some of the officers come across as chav's with badges, usually displaying a really poor attitude, surely if you were the chief constable, you would NOT want them being shown like this?
2) At what point does a victim of this programme, having been paraded on national TV as god knows what and basically having their reputation trashed have any real comeback on the police/TV production co?
Scuffers said:
1) who the hell edits this programme? if I were the Police management, I would want to make 110% sure that every case featured is rock solid and shows my officers in the best possible light.
the way the programme comes across, some of the officers come across as chav's with badges, usually displaying a really poor attitude, surely if you were the chief constable, you would NOT want them being shown like this?
I have frequently been amazed, by this and by other similar programmes, at the way in which the BiB so often portray themselves in a very poor light and yet it is allowed to go to air. Amongst the occasional "wtf" there are also a small number of "usual suspects", some of who present as being on some sort of power trip. I agree, how come the CC doesn't get involved? Perhaps of course he does, but after the horse has bolted.the way the programme comes across, some of the officers come across as chav's with badges, usually displaying a really poor attitude, surely if you were the chief constable, you would NOT want them being shown like this?
For balance, there have also been some extremely well-handled cases, by very reasonable officers, but still...
Edited by CAPP0 on Tuesday 22 July 16:34
Just had a quick look - I don't think the Volvo indicated, and had he looked in his mirrors could have seen based on the speed of the police that the cop would have been well past him before the slip road ended - so he had no need to pull over to the right. Therefore, he could have stayed in his lane.
But equally, the cop shouldn't have been tonking like that knowing that the slip goes to one lane almost immediately after his anticipated overtaking point.
50/50 would be my vote.
But equally, the cop shouldn't have been tonking like that knowing that the slip goes to one lane almost immediately after his anticipated overtaking point.
50/50 would be my vote.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff