Polite: Think Bike
Discussion
Pothole said:
Because they're not illegal and the police have better things to do. As, I'm sure, do you. Let it go.
Genuine question, why are horse riders in a copperish deemed to be at risk of prosecution for impersonating a police officer but motorcyclists aren’t?I’d have thought it would be more of an issue for a motorbike as unless a horse rider decides to have a hack past a football ground at kicking out time you’re unlikely to mistake them for longer than a first glance
xjay1337 said:
As a biker, Polite vests are worn exclusively by morons.
Same for those who ride panniered Pan euros with high vis stickers.
It's obvious what they are trying to be.
Absolutely. If you're a biker and you wear one then you are a huge throbber. I wonder if they realise everyone is looking at them and thinking "bellend"? Same for those who ride panniered Pan euros with high vis stickers.
It's obvious what they are trying to be.
Wear a plain hi viz jacket by all means, nothing wrong with that.
alock said:
The important question is whether the police should be able to dress in a way that makes them instantly identifiable? I assume there's a reason they dress in high visibility with very distinctive markings on?
I literally am stumped at your logic. Why would you not want an identifiable police? I genuinely cannot think of a single benefit. 
La Liga said:
'householder case' is the only time a person may use more than reasonable force 
As usual, mickmcpaddy 0, reality 1.
I thought Lord Denning said that only reasonable force was permitted but a householder could be allowed significant leeway as to their ability to judge reasonable force in the heat of the moment. He did not suggest that deliberate excessive force (eg "a good kicking") was lawful.As usual, mickmcpaddy 0, reality 1.
It's possible that both are right but with fractionally different meanings.
Retroman said:
Didn't realise so many got wound up when they've been tricked into driving sensibly for a few moments.
If it really did that, then peoples reactions would be positive.In reality, recognition of what is really happening takes less than a second and then this kicks in:
DuraAce said:
I wonder if they realise everyone is looking at them and thinking "bellend"?
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
'householder case' is the only time a person may use more than reasonable force
As usual, mickmcpaddy 0, reality 1.
I thought Lord Denning said that only reasonable force was permitted but a householder could be allowed significant leeway as to their ability to judge reasonable force in the heat of the moment. He did not suggest that deliberate excessive force (eg "a good kicking") was lawful.As usual, mickmcpaddy 0, reality 1.
It's possible that both are right but with fractionally different meanings.
t called Daily Mail World. Scary place!Given one can cause serious injury and death to someone (depending on the circumstances), I have assumed that level of harm is encompassed within 'a good kicking'.
Here's the heightened defence in householder cases.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#r...
Here's the heightened defence in householder cases.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#r...
S.76 CJIA said:
Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively. It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate. A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.
It's a shame the CPS didn't check their spelling... OpulentBob said:
alock said:
The important question is whether the police should be able to dress in a way that makes them instantly identifiable? I assume there's a reason they dress in high visibility with very distinctive markings on?
I literally am stumped at your logic. Why would you not want an identifiable police? I genuinely cannot think of a single benefit. The arguments are often formed from the idea that your driving shouldn't change if you see a police officer. That is the backwards part. The argument should start from asking why police need to be identifiable and what long term impact it might have to that need if the general public keep making false positive identifications.
alock said:
OpulentBob said:
alock said:
The important question is whether the police should be able to dress in a way that makes them instantly identifiable? I assume there's a reason they dress in high visibility with very distinctive markings on?
I literally am stumped at your logic. Why would you not want an identifiable police? I genuinely cannot think of a single benefit. The arguments are often formed from the idea that your driving shouldn't change if you see a police officer. That is the backwards part. The argument should start from asking why police need to be identifiable and what long term impact it might have to that need if the general public keep making false positive identifications.
alock said:
OpulentBob said:
alock said:
The important question is whether the police should be able to dress in a way that makes them instantly identifiable? I assume there's a reason they dress in high visibility with very distinctive markings on?
I literally am stumped at your logic. Why would you not want an identifiable police? I genuinely cannot think of a single benefit. The arguments are often formed from the idea that your driving shouldn't change if you see a police officer. That is the backwards part. The argument should start from asking why police need to be identifiable and what long term impact it might have to that need if the general public keep making false positive identifications.
This brought data for just under 5,700 overtakes, more or less evenly split between the seven outfits. None of the outfits made an appreciable difference to driver behaviour, apart from the one saying “police”. For the six others, the average passing distance was between about 114cm and 118cm. For “police” it went above 122cm. Similarly, the proportion of drivers who went very near the bike was noticeably lower for the “police” vest. In contrast, the tabard saying “polite” saw the nearest average overtaking distance and almost twice as many potentially dangerous passes as “police”.
The lessons seem clear and worrying. For one thing, no matter which outfit was worn, a small percentage of drivers still overtook dangerously near, at a distance of 50cm or less. More than this, it seemed drivers were perfectly able to distinguish between different types of rider, and to read and absorb any message displayed. But rather than adjusting their driving to the perceived experience of the cyclist, it was only when faced with a threat to their own welfare – a police rider filming their actions – that many allowed a cyclist more space on the road. Most alarming still, some seemed to treat the mild attempt at deception of “polite” as a reason to almost punish the cyclist.
From: - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/...
funkyrobot said:
If a driver needs to adjust their driving when they see this, they are doing something wrong.
Rubbish!Loads of people just randomly slow down when they see anything vaguely looking like the authorities by the side of the road for no reason what so ever.
They'll be doing 45 in a 50 limit, see something hi vis and drop to 40 "just in case".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff