Undertaking / filtering on left?

The democratic republic of Brownvaria
YouTube - UK Police Taser And Beat Man

I actually more worried about the glock 9mm he had holstered

Fixed ....

And that is a fine example of how the police should be treating the disobedient. Remember "Civil disobedience is still disobedience".

If it was a red car and he had a 9mm then they were most likely DPG or "Government Police". They're ruthless bastards.

Really? i've always found them such a cheery bunch.

Under the Human Rights (Suspension) Ordinance 2009, section 127 (i) (c)

"A Police Officer or any Government Official purporting to be a Police Officer may at his unfettered discretion insult, abuse or otherwise intimidate any person who, in his view, may be or may be about to be participating in any activity related to cycling."

I pointed out that is bollocks and anyway the highway code is guess what a 'code' and not the law.

OK, in future just cycle exactly how and where you think you should be able to......

quick question...
if you're stopped by a rosser and they say, "yu just jumped a red light heres a fine" what happens if say, "No i didn't, prove it! I'm innocent until proven guilty"

Got pulled over by the sweeny last night for an 'ilegal overtaking manoeuvre', red squadcar, full sirens, swerved infront of me blocking my escape.

I had thought our most expensive and highly trainned officers would have better things to do with their time and i could basicly break any road traffic law i wanted.

I was wrong - so I pointed out its actually called 'flitering and quiet legal'

I was then accused of 'speeding' as filtering according to the highway code can only be done at a maximum of 12kph.

I pointed out that is bollocks and anyway the highway code is guess what a 'code' and not the law.

then he started reaching for his tazer and demanded some ID, I compiled and was allowed to go on myway after my record check was clean.

Just who was wrong - apart from obviously me in everyway

Can't tell you about the law on filtering but I can tell you that the guidance issued to police drivers is that they are not to perform manoevres like swerving in front of cyclists to block them. Which is why the scrotes who steal bikes are pretty much free and clear once they are on the stolen bike. Mind you, that guidance might have changed, so I don't guarantee it is still officially so.

However, threatening someone with a tazer for suggesting that the police were incorrect is also not what those things were issued for. That is arguably threatening behaviour.

If they were so sure about their facts, how come they fucked off without doing a thing after checking your ID.

I'm not sure about any of the up-to-date law changes, but when was it law that you are required to produce ID at gunpoint?

Did you get the reg of the police car, or the officer's numbers? This deserves a complaint...

LFGSS
Giving ambiguous and questionable legal advice since 2007

beautiful. love you skully.

I would imagine that in our enlightened police state refusing to give your name when asked by an irritable police officer is grounds for a swift arrest on grounds of "pissing a police officer off"?

I had a long chat with a plain clothes officer about section 44 and reasonable grounds for detention under the terrorism act yesterday. Upshot is that refusing to give name and address is not grounds for suspicion under stop and search, but could be (read: would be) construed as reasonable suspicion under the prevention of terroism act. At least, according to the current interpretation of policy.

Filtering is fine. My mate was filtering in traffic on his motor powered cycle, a car decided to taxi a u turn out of the traffic, and he hit my mate, he was paid out for because what he was doing was fine. And the driver didn't have a right side mirror so he got turbo fucked.

Police are cunts sometimes, but i was let off the other day RLJing by cannon street.

filtering on the inside is not necessarily illegal but if you get in an accident you could be deemed negligent.

see my first ever post !

https://www.londonfgss.com/thread4520.html#post136630

quick question...
if you're stopped by a rosser and they say, "yu just jumped a red light heres a fine" what happens if say, "No i didn't, prove it! I'm innocent until proven guilty"

If you did jump the red light and they saw you, they would think that you were a right tit and probably take it further. If you didn't, just calmly point it out to them. NEVER use the last sentence. They know that; you know that.

If you did jump the red light and they saw you, they would think that you were a right tit and probably take it further. If you didn't, just calmly point it out to them. NEVER use the last sentence. They know that; you know that.

True, i don't think i'd ever use that sentence, i've always found the "Yes sir no sir three bags full sir" approach works best. It was more of a hypothetical situation, because you're not actually given a chance to defend yourself in these instances.
It seems the met are getting more and more like this guy,

Jumped a red (a bit) down Blackfriars road, and as I did a scooter sped up to get through the amber coming onto Blackfriars in the same direction as me. He shouted "that was a red"; I replied "yours was hardly green". He said he was a rozzer and fumbled for his badge. I said I believed him, and then he got really pissed because I told him his light wasn't green. Nothing else happened though.

LFGSS
Giving ambiguous and questionable legal advice since 2007

Under the Human Rights (Suspension) Ordinance 2009, section 127 (i) (c)

"A Police Officer or any Government Official purporting to be a Police Officer may at his unfettered discretion insult, abuse or otherwise intimidate any person who, in his view, may be or may be about to be participating in any activity related to cycling."

And then some entirely clear and completely made up advice, too. ;)

definitely not illegal. depending on circumstances, the po-po might want a word for riding without due care and attention, or wanton and furious riding or whatever it is (never encountered a cyclist in court for cycling, so it's pretty rare!)

There is so much mis-information around about undertaking on a bike or filtering to the left. Even the highway code can be fairly ambiguous.

Undertaking is permitted in cars when the lane of trafic to your right is static or slower moving than the lane you're in, but what about when there is no lane distinction?

Does anyone have any links or info that is fact about the legality of undertaking when cycling?

Google and searches seems to just turn up opinions rather than real facts.

search less but search better

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/highwaycode/index.htm

Midnight!

UK Road Law

I saw that lpg, you thicko.

Midnight!

I'm indifferent to midnight.

UK Road Law

yep, thanks.

Top result is highway code, which isn't necesarilly law and the least vague bit for cyclists says...

"
Road junctions

            **72**

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
"

So does that mean undertaking is ok because they mention it? As long as a vehicle is not signalling left it's ok to ride on the inside? And to pass them on the inside? Vehicles only turn left if they are signalling?

I saw that lpg, you thicko.

what-everrr!

what-everrr!

Those are facts, not opinions! hahaha

Those are facts, not opinions! hahaha

eh?

Top result is highway code, which isn't necesarilly law and the least vague bit for cyclists says...

There's more than one result.. keep reading...

Sod the law wherever it says. Ain't it just common sense not to do it - it's a good way to get crushed against railings etc and end up a bit dead?