Near Miss of the Day 550: Unmarked police car driver weaves through cyclists

nicmason wrote:

....

And thats nothing like this is it. 

By luck only, not management. That's the thing about risk.

Safe driving is all about reducing risk. This twonk did quite the opposite. Then flashed his lights as if t say "it's okay, I'm a highly trained driver"

nicmason wrote:

What I see is the usual roadcc group think pile on.

Incorrect. That's what you want to see.

There are a range of views presented in the comments. Most commenters are experienced road users and can recognise shit driving when we see it.

The red car driver's PoV - and their pathetic excuses - is not (and should not be) the only way to analyse their behaviour.

Simon E wrote:

nicmason wrote:

What I see is the usual roadcc group think pile on.

Incorrect. That's what you want to see.

There are a range of views presented in the comments. Most commenters are experienced road users and can recognise shit driving when we see it.

The red car driver's PoV - and their pathetic excuses - is not (and should not be) the only way to analyse their behaviour.

obvs I disagree . Note the italics there. is that like an enraged hiss.

The red car driver is rather anonymous in this though. they have made no excuses.

Perhaps they should have used blue lights and sirens to begin with, no sign of blue lights unti after the junction, taken dangerously.

Blue lights on from the begining should mean that cyclist pulls over and unmarked car can take junction on correct side of the ride. Landrover can't see the police car until they are face to face, has no reason to expect it will come round the corner on the wrong side. And no sires or blue lights either.

nicmason wrote:

Junctions are good places to pass.

The Highway Code disagrees with you

Quote:

166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching

• a corner or bend

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

• approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

...

• when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down

nicmason wrote:

Complete non story.  Police or fire on blue lights going somewhere in  a hurry may get quite close to you. I'll put this in my file of "I'm a special cyclist and my journey is vital" videos.

No, their emergency is not our problem. Blue lights should not be seen as a sign off to endanger lives that are nothing to do with your current job.

Driving safely around the vulnerable is not a courtesy, it is a bare minimum.

If you read the accompanying text, it is indicated that the police weren't attending an emergency; they just flashed their blue lights to indicate they are police and therefore above the law (at least it's presumed that must have been what they intended to signal). They did not have their blue lights flashing as the approached the junction. After passing the cyclist and flashing the lights, they then turned off the blue lights again and carried on their merry way.

Even if the police were attending an emergency, they are not above the law and the RTA still applies, with specific limited exceptions for emergency services. It's a long read, but there's some detailed discussion in the Guardian article from a while back: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/02/deaths-uk-police-pursuits-c...

Ho do you know its the police ?

 It could be a fire officer on his way to an incident.

Also how do you know if it is the police if they where attending a incident or not . Have you got a secret connection to emergency services despatch you havent tod anyone about.

nicmason wrote:

Ho do you know its the police ?

 It could be a fire officer on his way to an incident.

Also how do you know if it is the police if they where attending a incident or not . Have you got a secret connection to emergency services despatch you havent tod anyone about.

Do fire officers generally drive unmarked cars with concealed blue lights?

Yes they do.

https://www.fireservice.co.uk/information/blue-lights/

nicmason wrote:

Yes they do.

https://www.fireservice.co.uk/information/blue-lights/

Interesting, thanks for the data

[/quote]

Do fire officers generally drive unmarked cars with concealed blue lights?

[/quote]

They do in many cases yes. But if ot was a fire officer on an emergency call their blue lights would be on for the duration of the journey, and two tone horns would be used where appropriate.

nicmason wrote:

Ho do you know its the police ?

 It could be a fire officer on his way to an incident.

Also how do you know if it is the police if they where attending a incident or not . Have you got a secret connection to emergency services despatch you havent tod anyone about.

Regardless of whether it's the police, ambulance, or fire service on an emergency call they would have blue lights on for the whole time.

dreamlx10 wrote:

nicmason wrote:

Ho do you know its the police ?

 It could be a fire officer on his way to an incident.

Also how do you know if it is the police if they where attending a incident or not . Have you got a secret connection to emergency services despatch you havent tod anyone about.

Regardless of whether it's the police, ambulance, or fire service on an emergency call they would have blue lights on for the whole time.

Sure, just as soon as the call comes in.

nicmason wrote:

Ho do you know its the police ?

 It could be a fire officer on his way to an incident.

Also how do you know if it is the police if they where attending a incident or not . Have you got a secret connection to emergency services despatch you havent tod anyone about.

'So what' about all of this? No emergency response driver is taught to put other lives at risk in order to save time. Whoever this was wasn't 'responding', they were just driving like a twat, and trying to defend it makes you just as bad as them.

Thanks for that.

I didnt see anyones lives put at risk. In fact they drove into the turning very slowly.

nicmason wrote:

Thanks for that.

I didnt see anyones lives put at risk. In fact they drove into the turning very slowly.

 

So what purpose did cutting the corner actually serve?

[/quote]

So what purpose did cutting the corner actually serve?

[/quote]

 avoiding the cyclist obvs

nicmason wrote:

...

 avoiding the cyclist obvs

Avoiding the cyclist by overtaking on a corner that you can't see what's coming. Had the 4x4 been faster or sooner, our fireman friend would have responded by either taking the hit or swerving into the rider - I wonder which option they would have selected.....

Or, and this is a real stretch but bear with me, take the corner as you are supposed to (eg on the correct side of the road) , remain behind the rider until it is safe to pass, and do so in a competent and safe manner.

Obvs

its not really like that in the video though is it but I understand your need to take a worse case scenario about all these clickbait roadcc videos. 

nicmason wrote:

its not really like that in the video though is it but I understand your need to take a worse case scenario about all these clickbait roadcc videos. 

 

O'taking on a junction - tick

Turning into an essentially blind corner on the incorrect side of the road- tick

approaching 4x4 only seen at last second - tick

Shit driving  with no regard for other road users -tick

My description seems to be at least reasonable and defensible

However your "it was safe cos they were going slowly, and overtaking on a junction is fine cos it's a good place to do it" seems to be inconsistent with the HWC, safe driving theory, or indeed reality.

Dude, you are feeling sore cos a number of people have reasonably challenged your view that the driver behaved safely. As more than one has pointed out, the HWC also disagrees, as do a couple of past and present coppers in the comments.

 S'fine, but be a bigger person and retire gracefully rather than digging in.

I'm not the one getting hot under the collar on here.

Its the usual list of angry people as far as I can see.. 

nicmason wrote:

I'm not the one getting hot under the collar on here.

Its the usual list of angry people as far as I can see.. 

Lol course you aren't. Have a great weekend dude

and you !

I don't know it was police; I assumed based on the article title. It does seem most likely to have been police given the unmarked car, but the rest of what I said applies to any emergency service.

Again, I can't prove they weren't attending an emergency, I can only point out that their behaviour did not seem typical of emergency services if they were in fact attending an emergency. 

Finally, my point was that even if they were attending an emergency, that does not absolve them of a duty of care to other road users. 

nicmason wrote:

Complete non story.  Police or fire on blue lights going somewhere in  a hurry may get quite close to you. I'll put this in my file of "I'm a special cyclist and my journey is vital" videos.

If they were on a blue light emergency call then their lights should be on the whole time, and they would also use two tones where appropriate

Thatll be generally true but an incident may be called off while someone is on their way and then they'll turn them off.

nicmason wrote:

Thatll be generally true but an incident may be called off while someone is on their way and then they'll turn them off.

So which is it?

Was this driver responding to an emergency call and should have had blue loghts on the while time.

or had the call been cancelled, in which case no justification for taking the junction on the wrong side.

nicmason wrote:

Thatll be generally true but an incident may be called off while someone is on their way and then they'll turn them off.

Wow

So the lights went on after the incompetent and dangerous turn into the junction,  stayed on for  5s (check the vid) and then went off.

So that "emergency" was called and revoked in the space of 10 seconds if accounting for having to receive the call, negotiate the turn,  operate the lights, receive the second call and deactivate the lights, all whilst overtaking one cyclist in the face of others.

Even if there was a call (and when considering the above, the balance of probability is that the driver was actually just being  a twonk, and using the blues to either say sorry, or wave their willy) the actions of the driver would not have borne the risk-benefit analysis for that behaviour ;

• risk to public = high
• benefit to response = non-existent

And approaching that 'I can't see into this junction, anything could be around the corner' junction, sirens were definitely appropriate.