Police Camera Action, ITV4, Right now.
Discussion
Ok,
Just watching this show, just seen Mr A. Stewart sitting in the back of the police car, on a shout, with no seatbelt on?!?!?!?!?!
How can I get this p**k nicked for that?!?!? That is just sheer lunacy, the cop car was flying through the traffic. Feckin hypocrite.
Saying that, just watched a plod on a chase too, he had rather poor road awareness, twice pulled out to overtake when there were cars coming (which we could see on the camera) and finally did the overtake approaching a crest in the road (forced another car coming the other way to brake hard to avoid him too)..
Finally, is the figure in the bottom right the speed of the patrol car? If so, one was (after the wan**r, sorry, presenter, told us that Speed is Very Dangerous and even though it is well publicised, people still do it...) sitting on the motorway at 82mph when the bike went past him...........
Just watching this show, just seen Mr A. Stewart sitting in the back of the police car, on a shout, with no seatbelt on?!?!?!?!?!
How can I get this p**k nicked for that?!?!? That is just sheer lunacy, the cop car was flying through the traffic. Feckin hypocrite.
Saying that, just watched a plod on a chase too, he had rather poor road awareness, twice pulled out to overtake when there were cars coming (which we could see on the camera) and finally did the overtake approaching a crest in the road (forced another car coming the other way to brake hard to avoid him too)..
Finally, is the figure in the bottom right the speed of the patrol car? If so, one was (after the wan**r, sorry, presenter, told us that Speed is Very Dangerous and even though it is well publicised, people still do it...) sitting on the motorway at 82mph when the bike went past him...........
jasandjules said:
Ok,
Just watching this show, just seen Mr A. Stewart sitting in the back of the police car, on a shout, with no seatbelt on?!?!?!?!?!
How can I get this p**k nicked for that?!?!? That is just sheer lunacy, the cop car was flying through the traffic. Feckin hypocrite.
Saying that, just watched a plod on a chase too, he had rather poor road awareness, twice pulled out to overtake when there were cars coming (which we could see on the camera) and finally did the overtake approaching a crest in the road (forced another car coming the other way to brake hard to avoid him too)..
Finally, is the figure in the bottom right the speed of the patrol car? If so, one was (after the wan**r, sorry, presenter, told us that Speed is Very Dangerous and even though it is well publicised, people still do it...) sitting on the motorway at 82mph when the bike went past him...........
Just watching this show, just seen Mr A. Stewart sitting in the back of the police car, on a shout, with no seatbelt on?!?!?!?!?!
How can I get this p**k nicked for that?!?!? That is just sheer lunacy, the cop car was flying through the traffic. Feckin hypocrite.
Saying that, just watched a plod on a chase too, he had rather poor road awareness, twice pulled out to overtake when there were cars coming (which we could see on the camera) and finally did the overtake approaching a crest in the road (forced another car coming the other way to brake hard to avoid him too)..
Finally, is the figure in the bottom right the speed of the patrol car? If so, one was (after the wan**r, sorry, presenter, told us that Speed is Very Dangerous and even though it is well publicised, people still do it...) sitting on the motorway at 82mph when the bike went past him...........
I only saw a bit of this but a couple of observations on your comments - how do you know the officer was pulling out to overtake when there were cars coming .....
He may have been looking for better vision of the subject vehicle or the options that vehicle may have further ahead. This is virtually impossible to do if approaching direct behind another car. I often position for better vision when pursuing someone. It is not just about looking to overtake; there is an awful lot more to it than that !
Having said that, I didn't see the car have to brake so can't really comment on that bit but if the police driver did cause them to need a change of pants then they are in the wrong.
As for the speed, if intending to stop / pursue I am often doing alot more than the speed limit when overtaken, thereby reducing my 'catch up' time and thereby hopefully risk involved. The quicker a pursuit is brought to a close the better.
One last thing to remember is that the human eye sees alot more than the provida camera in the police car can accurately show on TV.
As I say, I only saw a bit of the program so may be completely wrong but people need to understand they may not know quite what the police officer is doing, why or what they are looking at without it being explained in detail as to why. This is never going to be possible with a TV program.
Seatbelt ... yes, down to him - though the police driver should have ensured he was wearing one. No excuse - I personally couldn't care less if they are filming; it doesn't set a good example.
Have I said brake test anyone? (I may have done in a moment of anger) BUT If you are referring to the thread where the police were following closely then I recall saying about the fact that if a cat/dog whatever ran out and you had to brake. Tailgating is feckin dangerous.
As for exemptions, he is a TV reporter, I can't see how he has an exemption.
In reply to the police officer, no, I am afraid it was an overtake, he actually went out and was proceeding to get alongside the other car when he noticed the vehicle coming in the other direction (which was on the camera a second before, though of course he could have been checking his mirrors/blind spot), then he had to brake hard and swerve back in.... Then as I said, when he next tried, it was approaching a crest in the road.. And worst of all, he didn't fly past the car he was overtaking, well, it didn't seem like it....
As for exemptions, he is a TV reporter, I can't see how he has an exemption.
In reply to the police officer, no, I am afraid it was an overtake, he actually went out and was proceeding to get alongside the other car when he noticed the vehicle coming in the other direction (which was on the camera a second before, though of course he could have been checking his mirrors/blind spot), then he had to brake hard and swerve back in.... Then as I said, when he next tried, it was approaching a crest in the road.. And worst of all, he didn't fly past the car he was overtaking, well, it didn't seem like it....
jasandjules said:
Have I said brake test anyone? (I may have done in a moment of anger) BUT If you are referring to the thread where the police were following closely then I recall saying about the fact that if a cat/dog whatever ran out and you had to brake. Tailgating is feckin dangerous.
As for exemptions, he is a TV reporter, I can't see how he has an exemption.
In reply to the police officer, no, I am afraid it was an overtake, he actually went out and was proceeding to get alongside the other car when he noticed the vehicle coming in the other direction (which was on the camera a second before, though of course he could have been checking his mirrors/blind spot), then he had to brake hard and swerve back in.... Then as I said, when he next tried, it was approaching a crest in the road.. And worst of all, he didn't fly past the car he was overtaking, well, it didn't seem like it....
As for exemptions, he is a TV reporter, I can't see how he has an exemption.
In reply to the police officer, no, I am afraid it was an overtake, he actually went out and was proceeding to get alongside the other car when he noticed the vehicle coming in the other direction (which was on the camera a second before, though of course he could have been checking his mirrors/blind spot), then he had to brake hard and swerve back in.... Then as I said, when he next tried, it was approaching a crest in the road.. And worst of all, he didn't fly past the car he was overtaking, well, it didn't seem like it....
Let me make it clear, tailgating is not good practice, it increases risk.
Like you can sometimes take the higher risk of speed safely (if not legally), so you can be closer to the vehicle infront & still be safe despite the higher risk if managed well.
You can do that if you have sufficient view ahead of the lead vehicle, observed that they have no options or problems that they are going to brake for etc etc.
You would do this immeadiately leading up to an overtake for instance.
The true danger comes when you (despite you having made good observation & reasonable sensible planning) are thwarted by the actions of the idiot infront who has this ridiculous perception that they are somehow removing danger by stamping on the brakes for a second, when infact it is they who are creating it. If you feel threatened by what you perceive as another's dangerous actions, then do something to reduce it & by safe means. Don't do something more dangerous.
The underlying tone of your replying on the other thread seemed quite clear to me & it appears others. If I was wrong in that then I apologise but if you that wasn't what you intended I suggest you read the thread in it's entirety & see if you think others may come to the conclusion that I & others did.
Secondly he should be wearing the seatbelt.
Thirdly video is far less sophisticated the human eye & can distort warp perception.
I haven't seen it so I can't say what my impression would eb if I did, but the human eye is a magical piece of kit that has undergone far more years of evolutionary development than the humble video camera.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:48
Sorry, bit confused here.
I said, in reply to being prosecuted for braking hard, that you are entitled to do so where a hazard comes along, such as a cat in the road etc..?? The lack of smilies I thought indicates I am not joking? IF I see a cat run in the road, I will brake for it. Simple as. So that is taken as I think it is funny to brake hard whenever there is a car behind me? I suppose that is the problem with the written word on-line.
Von, I appreciate what you are saying in respect of the camera being poor etc.. in comparison to the eye, and I agree with you, hence my distate of speed cameras.. Here however there was a couple of seconds (well, at least 1 second) as I saw the car approaching, then saw the police car begin to execute the overtake, then apparently notice the other car/decide he wouldn't make it and brake hard (it seemed to me judging by the camera) and swerve back in behind the car he was following. This I would have understood/not complained about BUT for the fact that the second overtake attempt was executed with similar lack of skill/judgement it seemed and my heart froze when I saw him go for the overtake within proximity of a crest in the road, which by sods law actually did have a car behind it..
So, how do we get Mr Holier than thou speed kills but drink driving doesn't Stewart nicked for that then? Feckin hypocrite at the best of times.
I suppose I was also riled by the chase sequence shortly thereafter.. The Speeding Motorist is refusing to stop.. He is travelling at upto 45mph in a 60 limit... Whilst they are scared of his speeding they don't worry about the red light he ran, the fact he was driving on the wrong side of hte road etc... No, that was fine. IT was speeding.. Later on, quietly they mention he is being chased for being a robber... But still, it was the speeding that they focused on.. Indoctrination of the masses.
I said, in reply to being prosecuted for braking hard, that you are entitled to do so where a hazard comes along, such as a cat in the road etc..?? The lack of smilies I thought indicates I am not joking? IF I see a cat run in the road, I will brake for it. Simple as. So that is taken as I think it is funny to brake hard whenever there is a car behind me? I suppose that is the problem with the written word on-line.
Von, I appreciate what you are saying in respect of the camera being poor etc.. in comparison to the eye, and I agree with you, hence my distate of speed cameras.. Here however there was a couple of seconds (well, at least 1 second) as I saw the car approaching, then saw the police car begin to execute the overtake, then apparently notice the other car/decide he wouldn't make it and brake hard (it seemed to me judging by the camera) and swerve back in behind the car he was following. This I would have understood/not complained about BUT for the fact that the second overtake attempt was executed with similar lack of skill/judgement it seemed and my heart froze when I saw him go for the overtake within proximity of a crest in the road, which by sods law actually did have a car behind it..
So, how do we get Mr Holier than thou speed kills but drink driving doesn't Stewart nicked for that then? Feckin hypocrite at the best of times.
I suppose I was also riled by the chase sequence shortly thereafter.. The Speeding Motorist is refusing to stop.. He is travelling at upto 45mph in a 60 limit... Whilst they are scared of his speeding they don't worry about the red light he ran, the fact he was driving on the wrong side of hte road etc... No, that was fine. IT was speeding.. Later on, quietly they mention he is being chased for being a robber... But still, it was the speeding that they focused on.. Indoctrination of the masses.
jasandjules said:
Sorry, bit confused here.
I said, in reply to being prosecuted for braking hard, that you are entitled to do so where a hazard comes along, such as a cat in the road etc..?? The lack of smilies I thought indicates I am not joking? IF I see a cat run in the road, I will brake for it. Simple as. So that is taken as I think it is funny to brake hard whenever there is a car behind me? I suppose that is the problem with the written word on-line.
Von, I appreciate what you are saying in respect of the camera being poor etc.. in comparison to the eye, and I agree with you, hence my distate of speed cameras.. Here however there was a couple of seconds (well, at least 1 second) as I saw the car approaching, then saw the police car begin to execute the overtake, then apparently notice the other car/decide he wouldn't make it and brake hard (it seemed to me judging by the camera) and swerve back in behind the car he was following. This I would have understood/not complained about BUT for the fact that the second overtake attempt was executed with similar lack of skill/judgement it seemed and my heart froze when I saw him go for the overtake within proximity of a crest in the road, which by sods law actually did have a car behind it..
So, how do we get Mr Holier than thou speed kills but drink driving doesn't Stewart nicked for that then? Feckin hypocrite at the best of times.
I suppose I was also riled by the chase sequence shortly thereafter.. The Speeding Motorist is refusing to stop.. He is travelling at upto 45mph in a 60 limit... Whilst they are scared of his speeding they don't worry about the red light he ran, the fact he was driving on the wrong side of hte road etc... No, that was fine. IT was speeding.. Later on, quietly they mention he is being chased for being a robber... But still, it was the speeding that they focused on.. Indoctrination of the masses.
I said, in reply to being prosecuted for braking hard, that you are entitled to do so where a hazard comes along, such as a cat in the road etc..?? The lack of smilies I thought indicates I am not joking? IF I see a cat run in the road, I will brake for it. Simple as. So that is taken as I think it is funny to brake hard whenever there is a car behind me? I suppose that is the problem with the written word on-line.
Von, I appreciate what you are saying in respect of the camera being poor etc.. in comparison to the eye, and I agree with you, hence my distate of speed cameras.. Here however there was a couple of seconds (well, at least 1 second) as I saw the car approaching, then saw the police car begin to execute the overtake, then apparently notice the other car/decide he wouldn't make it and brake hard (it seemed to me judging by the camera) and swerve back in behind the car he was following. This I would have understood/not complained about BUT for the fact that the second overtake attempt was executed with similar lack of skill/judgement it seemed and my heart froze when I saw him go for the overtake within proximity of a crest in the road, which by sods law actually did have a car behind it..
So, how do we get Mr Holier than thou speed kills but drink driving doesn't Stewart nicked for that then? Feckin hypocrite at the best of times.
I suppose I was also riled by the chase sequence shortly thereafter.. The Speeding Motorist is refusing to stop.. He is travelling at upto 45mph in a 60 limit... Whilst they are scared of his speeding they don't worry about the red light he ran, the fact he was driving on the wrong side of hte road etc... No, that was fine. IT was speeding.. Later on, quietly they mention he is being chased for being a robber... But still, it was the speeding that they focused on.. Indoctrination of the masses.
I've done it as well, I should have said more within the context of the discussion on the other thread rather than underlying tone.
Like I say I apologise if that's not what you meant.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff