# Cops - 2 idi*ts!



## TT_Tesh (Feb 22, 2009)

Right here goes..

Moved to a new location in the UK and admittedly I was a bit lost. Anyway I was following my GF who was 1 car in front who was using her sat nav to get us back home.

Anyway - 2 lanes merged into one and I was in the main lane when the left lane merged into mine. An unmarked police car was 'loitering' in the left lane. As I didnt know it was a police car, I stood my ground and thought well.. he can slot in behind me for not having lane discipline - which he did.

Not a few seconds had gone and he put the lights on. Pulled over to the side and he pulled up to my window and the passenger police officer said 'that is stupid driving' and 'think of others' - I apologised and said I was lost and needed to maintain visiability of my gf who was a few cars in front.

Obviously ignored me and then put the window up and pulled in front of me like they were better then me.

No wonder people have no respect for the police. All this 'people's police' and 'we will keep you updated on crime in your area' is all a load of old tosh.

What an absolute joke!

Rant over.. for NOW!


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Terrible , I hope you got his number and make a formal complaint.


----------



## ecko2702 (Jan 26, 2009)

What an prick! I hate the police that are out and have nothing better to do than pull people for bullshit reasons. I love the ones who turn their lights on so they don't have to sit a red light. I would make a complaint.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Surprised you bothered to apologise. I generally find the traffic plod to be a bit dim and blinkered although I've encountered 2 notable exceptions in 20 odd years of driving (thats how much they stood out, I remember them and strangely I never do what I was doing when they pulled me over ever now!). I make a distinction between traffic plod and general plod though. Traffic seems to attract a certain kind of pedantic, narrow minded, arrogant time waster for some reason.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Some interesting, automatic responses.

I've read the post and I really can't work out exactly what it was that happened and therefore cannot make any judgement on who was in the right and who in the wrong. What exactly is meant by 'loitering' in the nearside lane, and just where does the 'lack of lane discipline' feature? All I can gather is that the poster made a deliberate decision not to allow another car to pull into his lane where general courtesy may have suggested he should, that the said car turned out to be the police and that the officers had a quick word to advise him. Whether that was justified or not is impossible to say because I really can't paint a picture of what took place from the scant information provided.

And I suspect neither can anyone else.

But the cops are wrong regardless, apparently. Because of course whenever anyone posts a complaint about the police they are _always_ right, _never_ report with a biased view and _all_ cops are wankers anyway, so naturally people can't wait to voice their support even if they haven't got a clue what actually happened.

Hmmmm . . .


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> Some interesting, automatic responses.
> 
> I've read the post and I really can't work out exactly what it was that happened and therefore cannot make any judgement on who was in the right and who in the wrong. All I can gather is that the poster made a deliberate decision not to allow another car to pull into his lane, that the said car turned out to be the police and that the officers had a quick word to advise him. Whether that was justified or not is impossible to say because I really can't paint a picture of what took place from the scant information provided.
> 
> ...


Hi Mark

I took the OP to be complaining about the lack of empathy/insight the police displayed when he apologised and explained why he had done it. Had I been the plod (never, ever, ever happen) then I would have said "Ok, I understand that, but you should let people in normally" which I am sure would have elicited a different response from the OP.

For me the issue isnt right or wrong, it is the arrogance and attitude you get from what are after all public servants when you either arent breaking the law at all (in this case it is merely etiquette) or what you have done is a minor misdemenour and you are spoken to like you just raped his wife and killed his kids.

Well, thats what I read into it anyway.

Rich


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

i have been pulled over by plod four times in twenty-odd years.

first time i was caught with no tax disc - traffic plod was very civil and was more interested in checking my documents than lecturing me. still got a 20 quid fine, but hey, i was in the wrong.

next time was not so good - i went through a light on amber and regular plod in panda said it was red. i was driving a dutton kit car and he just wanted to let me know that they would be looking out for me in future - no ticket just a stern warning for my own good.
last two times were random pull-overs so that they could ask if i had been drinking - again perfectly civil and i really do not mind being pulled over for bullshit reasons if it helps weed out drivers who have taken drugs or have been drinking.

what you need to remember is that 95% of the people plod has to deal with are arrogant and rude little shits who will come out with lie upon lie. they also have to deal with a home secretary who is a complete knob and is only interested in ensuring that the police report crime figures that suggest that the uk is not degenerating into the mugger's mecca that it really is. so sometimes yes, they may be frustrated and stressed and be a bit sharp with the 5% of decent and upstanding citizens they come into contact with. cut the poor bastards some slack - would you do their job?

had the op been in france, he would probably have been pulled out of the car, pistol whipped and given an 80 euro fine with no comeback. in south america you probably would have been shot. for sure there are some unpleasant people in the uk police force (like the north wales speed-averse copper who was caught speeding but the paperwork was conveniently 'lost') but they are the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## BLinky (Jul 3, 2009)

they dont know the highway code better than most people.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

If you read the OP, he wasn't even pulled over properly... The officer didn't even get out his car. Being told off for something you think was perfectly reasonable might be a bit frustrating, but I'd hardly call it an example of the Police being idiots, or of being victimised. I genuinely couldn't understand what he was complaining about.

On top of that, comments like "pulled in front of me like they were better then me" just make me wonder about the OPs motives for stopping the car getting in front of him in the first place. Typically, a merge is a merge. No one lane has right of way... It doesn't matter what you think is the 'main' lane... You merge in turn, unless there happens to be a suitable gap next to you.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Spandex said:


> If you read the OP, he wasn't even pulled over properly... The officer didn't even get out his car. Being told off for something you think was perfectly reasonable might be a bit frustrating, but I'd hardly call it an example of the Police being idiots, or of being victimised. I genuinely couldn't understand what he was complaining about.
> 
> On top of that, comments like "pulled in front of me like they were better then me" just make me wonder about the OPs motives for stopping the car getting in front of him in the first place. Typically, a merge is a merge. No one lane has right of way... It doesn't matter what you think is the 'main' lane... You merge in turn, unless there happens to be a suitable gap next to you.


Of course, being BMW drivers whilst we know to merge in turn, we should never, ever use our indicators. It's in the manual.


----------



## ecko2702 (Jan 26, 2009)

Leg said:


> Of course, being BMW drivers whilst we know to merge in turn, we should never, ever use our indicators. It's in the manual.


 :lol: :lol: So very true


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Leg said:


> Of course, being BMW drivers whilst we know to merge in turn, we should never, ever use our indicators. It's in the manual.


I didn't realised they even came equipped with them tbh...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I've never really understood why I'd want to use indicators... I don't see how I benefit from them at all.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

It protects against grumpy men with bangers who won't mind scratching your nice clean car...


----------



## ecko2702 (Jan 26, 2009)

Dash said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, being BMW drivers whilst we know to merge in turn, we should never, ever use our indicators. It's in the manual.
> ...


It was an optional extra it's a BMW nothing is standard :lol:


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

BLinky said:


> they dont know the highway code better than most people.


My mate and I had this years ago. (Was a normal bobby on teh beat in his focus) pulled Rich and I over in his MR2. Didnt like us for being young in a sporty car. So went over tyres exhaust with a torch, all very pleasant yes officer sir no officer etc...

Then

Cop "Please open your boot"
Rich "ok, but why?"
Cop " Id like to check your spare"
Me " :lol: "
Rich " there isnt a spare"
Cop - starts writting out a ticket
Rich "Why are you doing that?"
Cop " no spare tyre"
Rich " What law am I braking?"
Cop - "Traffic act 19... (whatever it is)"
Rich "Which part?"
Cop "It doesnt matter"
Rich "Does to me, which bit?"
Cop - Gets on his radio and asks someone, walks over to his car
a minuet passes

cop gets in car and drives off

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TT_Tesh (Feb 22, 2009)

Its not so much about being the wrong lane but I was clearly in the right. The lane was merging at least 100 metres before and instead of indicating and getting into the 'right' lane in time, he waited to the last minute.

Thinking he is better then everyone because he is in a 5 series and can push in (typically BMW driver).

Yes I apologised as I couldnt be bothered to deal with the trouble of speaking with them. It's stupid and it things like this which allow 'middle england aka good honest people' to have little or no faith in our police and civil servants.

Appreciate your comments guys.

Espec the BMW with no indicators fitted! I'll make sure I try and source one with some fitted when I buy one.. (might be a bit tricky though!)

[smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Rudetesh99 said:


> Its not so much about being the wrong lane but I was clearly in the right. The lane was merging at least 100 metres before and instead of indicating and getting into the 'right' lane in time, he waited to the last minute.
> 
> Thinking he is better then everyone because he is in a 5 series and can push in (typically BMW driver).
> 
> ...


F*ck em, they have to work weekends and nights and wear bloody stupid hats. I would be pissed off at everyone too.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Rudetesh99 said:


> Thinking he is better then everyone because he is in a 5 series and can push in (typically BMW driver).


I drive a 5 series and I'm definitely better than everyone else. I can see where they're coming from.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Rudetesh99 said:


> The lane was merging at least 100 metres before and instead of indicating and getting into the 'right' lane in time, he waited to the last minute.


What he's done is in fact the correct approach as detailed in the highway code. Where two lanes merge the approved method is for traffic to use the entirity of both lanes and then at the point of the merger to come together in turn in a zipper fashion. In this way all the available road is put to use and therefore minimises any tailback. Of course what people actually do is try and squeeze into lane far too early and create a huge great queue unnecessarily. Even worse are those people - usually lorries when approaching roadworks - who actually block off both lanes to stop people passing the queue. Obviously they do it to stop people 'queue jumping' but in reality they're just preventing people doing what they are supposed to do and are actually committing the offence of obstructing the highway. And then of course when those who do make their way the whole length of the closing lane as they should get to the merger nobody will let them in for the same reason - like you.

So actually no, you were not in the right and the police driver (who without doubt was much better trained than you and clearly had a better knowledge of the highway code) was doing exactly what he should have been doing while you basically cut him up. You then compound your poor driving and ignorance of the highway code by coming onto the internet to show your arse by publicly slagging off the cops when in fact it was you who was in the wrong.

You clearly deserved the words of advice that you got and now the full facts are know it seems you were dealt with very fairly in a low-key fashion. I really don't see you have any cause for complaint at all and frankly ought to be offering your apologies.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Of course Mark, it pays dividends for your argument to avoid the point of the OP that he was merely trying to follow another car to a destination and, whilst accepting he wasnt correct in his action upon imparting this to the plod, he just got rudeness, as per usual. Seems clear to me that the OP was in fact protesting at the attitude, not the fact that he was or wasnt in the wrong.

Sorry to bleat on but some, and I repeat *some*, traffic plod are arrogant and rude. To deny that is to stick your head in the sand. It's the ones that act reasonably that get the best response from the public, always has been.


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Rudetesh99 said:


> Right here goes..
> 
> Moved to a new location in the UK and admittedly I was a bit lost. Anyway I was following my GF who was 1 car in front who was using her sat nav to get us back home.
> 
> ...


Clearly not a London cop, as if they had to pull over every inconsiderate driver, they would need a million more bobbies...


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Bikerz said:


> BLinky said:
> 
> 
> > they dont know the highway code better than most people.
> ...


If you have a spare, which is illegal, it is an MOT failure and hence car is not road worthy, if you have no spare, or tyre weld or anything you would pass an MOT.

Same goes for wing mirrors, if you only have one (other one knocked off I suppose) then an MOT failure, if you rip off the other one (hence no wing mirrors) you will pass.

Got to love traffic laws :wink:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The MOT and tyre thing does seem slightly odd, but it's probably bang on. An MOT checks to see if your vehicle is safe to use on the road.

If you don't have a spare tyre, there is no risk of you driving around with a defective tyre come a puncture. If you do have a spare and it's defective you could be a danger on the road.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

SimonQS said:


> Bikerz said:
> 
> 
> > BLinky said:
> ...


Correct I know these laws like the back of my hand (have to with some of my mates) Also indicators, if one doesnt work, take them off and your fine.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

all very well Mark ( Davis ) and i agree with most of what you say, but regarding the blending in " zipper " fashion, which i agree is the correct procedure, and sometimes has to be enforced ( !!  ) but in doing so who do you come in in front of,, do you have "right of way " over the vehicle which is nearest to the last markings on the dissapearing lane or do you rely on some kind person " giving way ",, i know what i usually do but this often causes some "bad feeling ",,, which i normally choose to ignore...  ,,


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Leg said:


> whilst accepting he wasnt correct in his action upon imparting this to the plod, he just got rudeness, as per usual.


Where in his account does it show the police were rude? The only quotes given were, "That is stupid driving. Think of others." Are you seriously suggesting there's anything rude about that?

The fact is, there isn't anything rude about it. It's *you* who have taken an account and applied your own prejudism to it, assigning what you believe or want to be a characteristic of the police into behaviour where it never actually was in the first place. Clearly the poster could have reported _any_ conversation whatsoever and you would have automatically presumed what was said was rude. You're just making it up as you go along to give yourself a reason to slag-off the cops whether they deserve it or not!

And this is exactly the argument I make about it having very little to do with the attitude of the police (which is generally the subject of complaints) and far more to do with the insistence of certain members of the public to interprate absolutely _anything_ the police do in a negative fashion, even where that is completely unjustified.

The more you look at it, the more information you get, the clearer it becomes that the police officers have done absolutely nothing wrong here - _but you just *will not *have it_.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

roddy said:


> all very well Mark ( Davis ) and i agree with most of what you say, but regarding the blending in " zipper " fashion, which i agree is the correct procedure, and sometimes has to be enforced ( !!  ) but in doing so who do you come in in front of,, do you have "right of way " over the vehicle which is nearest to the last markings on the dissapearing lane or do you rely on some kind person " giving way ",, i know what i usually do but this often causes some "bad feeling ",,, which i normally choose to ignore...  ,,


I think someone mentioned earlier, there's no rule about either of the lanes having right of way in particular however I would suggest if you're in doubt just give way. One car length isn't going to make the least bit of difference to your journey, it avoids potential accidents caused by aggressively fighting for a gap and besides by showing some courtesy you're helping to spread the love!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > all very well Mark ( Davis ) and i agree with most of what you say, but regarding the blending in " zipper " fashion, which i agree is the correct procedure, and sometimes has to be enforced ( !!  ) but in doing so who do you come in in front of,, do you have "right of way " over the vehicle which is nearest to the last markings on the dissapearing lane or do you rely on some kind person " giving way ",, i know what i usually do but this often causes some "bad feeling ",,, which i normally choose to ignore...  ,,
> ...


yes mark, i have no problem in letting someone from the " dissapearing " lane out in front of me, but it is when it is me trying to get out into the other lane that the problem arises, so few people will let others out, ( usually just by looking ahead and being ready to use a gap when it arrives solves the prob ) , so why is it then that when the OP does not give way HE is wrong,, but when the PLOD does not then he is right ??? :? :?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I'm sorry Mark, but calling somebody's driving "stupid" is rude. Sure it's not the worst thing that could have been said, but it's hardly polite either.

I would think that any professional driver (Police or otherwise) would be aware of circumstance being a big contributor to any decision made on the road. Trying to stay behind another car in a convoy is a good example of it.

On the other hand in the Police officer's defence. We all know that giving way and merging is something that the selfish British public are getting more sucky at. There was good odds that the original poster was being inconsiderate in the lane merging. Turns out he had a valid reason - and the officer wasn't really bothered enough to stop and find out.

No real harm down, but I would be pissed off too if a copper had called me stupid without letting me defend my position.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Im with Dash here the copper was very rude. Mate was stopped and copper asked why you driving like a knob, my mate had done nothing illegal was just booting it off lights upto speed limit. That ended in a good 40min of wasted police and tax payers time and money. Copper was being a right prat!


----------



## TT Boycie (Sep 27, 2009)

To turn things round, if the police car was in the main lane, and you went down the outside of it and left it until the last minute to filter in, in front of them, albeit safely, im pretty sure the plod would pull you over and have something to say....


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Bikerz said:


> Im with Dash here the copper was very rude. Mate was stopped and copper asked why you driving like a knob, my mate had done nothing illegal was just booting it off lights upto speed limit. That ended in a good 40min of wasted police and tax payers time and money. Copper was being a right prat!


Surely booting it from the lights would be considered by most people to be driving like a knob? I mean sure, we all do it but when I do, I know that I probably just look like a knob to everyone else.

If I did it and a Police officer saw it and told me I was a knob, I'd just think "fair enough". To be honest, as long as they don't fine me or give me points, they can call me whatever they want. Maybe I'm just not as sensitive as some people...


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

yea thats fine, but do we really need the plod wandering around harrasing everyone that they think is acting or even looking like a nob !!! 
ello ello ello, thats a stupid hat you are wearing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, whats your name then ???
ello ello ello, what you doin looking at that rare train engine,, whats your name then ????
ello ello ello , what you doin blowin your nose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,whats your name then ???


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

The thing is, you're always on a loser here.

I'm not the least bit interested in dealing with traffic matters. Traffic law is just designed to keep everyone safe. Breaking a traffic law is not in itself per se a bad thing - not in the way that say burglary obviously is - not if it's done safely. I have no issue with that. As a police officer with legal exemptions I break the rules regularly but do it perfectly safely. As long as we drive safely then what does it matter?

Just like everybody else I lament the proliforation of speed cameras because they cannot make a judgement on the circumstances at the time. They're no substitute for proper traffic officers with a remit of education rather than taxation. sadly we've already lost most of them.

However, just what would be your thoughts if you saw someone commit a blatant traffic offence (such as going through a red light) right in front of a police officer? Be honest, if they pulled you for doing it you'd be wondering if they didn't have anything better to do. But if you saw someone else do it and the cops did absolutely nothing you'd not hesitiate to criticise, would you?

So we can't win, can we? Pull you and we're out of order. Don't pull someone else and we're out of order. I compromise. I always pull them so that others see some action has been taken but never give out a ticket - not unless they are a complete cock and talk themselves into it. So there you go.

Bikerz, I think you're just exactly the same as Leg. You're determined to find fault. If someone has done something stupid telling them they have done something stupid isn't rude - it's just plain and simply stating the facts. There's absolutely nothing conceivably discourteous about it at all. It just seems you think making comment at all on someones driving is rude. Police officers are paid to keep our roads safe. If we never talked to people about their driving how on earth do you expect us to do our jobs?


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

Is it COP Bashing week :roll:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> Bikerz, I think you're just exactly the same as Leg. You're determined to find fault. If someone has done something stupid telling them they have done something stupid isn't rude - it's just plain and simply stating the facts. There's absolutely nothing conceivably discourteous about it at all. It just seems you think making comment at all on someones driving is rude. Police officers are paid to keep our roads safe. If we never talked to people about their driving how on earth do you expect us to do our jobs?


Christ, and you moan at Jampott for not reading and understanding your posts. :roll: Wake up Mark, traffic coppers can be just downright rude, just like anyone else. Call centre staff can, traffic wardens, waiters, you name it. Good and bad.

All I have said, throughout, and I'll put this in clear terms for you one last final time, is that *some *coppers are arrogant, narrow minded and rude and there is no need for it because all it does is put people's backs up. Those police officers that have some common sense, a degree of intelligence and arent so far up their uniforms arse that can interact in a civil, good mannered way ALWAYS get the best results. Same as any job, and that's all it is.

I mean, FFS I pulled over in a layby before Christmas near my kids school which is near DRAX Power station to deal with an email I had recieved on my iPhone and one knocked on the window and started giving me grief in an arrogant manner. After about 5 minutes he revealed the reason why he was doing so was because there were environmental protestors in the area and I might be connected to them.

First environmental protestor in a suit, with 2 kids in school uniform in the car (green blazers with the local private school logo on the pocket) sat in a 4000cc V8 bright white sports car. I'm more likely to be a target of the protestors, what an idiot. Really arrogant about it too he was.

Now, if my impression is that some traffic coppers are arrogant and rude and that is based on experiences like that AND I've also said that some are good and some are bad then exactly HOW on earth can you say that I'm determined to find fault? Sounds like only your point of view matters which sounds familiar!

I could recount the tale of being pulled over at 90 on the M1 with the interior light on, reading a map, on the phone (in my ear) and no seatbelt on in the rain and the copper laughing when he asked me why i thought he had pulled me over and i listed all those reasons (and he hadnt noticed the seatbelt or phone) and telling me never to do it on his patch again and go home. It's over 10 years ago in my Vectra days (N266HUA where are you now?) and you know what, Ive never done that again or anything similar becuase the guy was fair with me. I still tell the story when people moan about the police, I still also tell other tales where they have been pricks too.


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

wasn't the yorkshire ripper caught by a plod who decided to ask a few questions to a bloke pulled up in a layby?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

hooting_owl said:


> wasn't the yorkshire ripper caught by a plod who decided to ask a few questions to a bloke pulled up in a layby?


Luckily he didnt look in the boot where I had 2 prostitutes tied up for later. Thats why I was annoyed, he delayed me by a good 30 minutes and these hookers charge by the fucking hour!


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Leg said:


> Now, if my impression is that some traffic coppers are arrogant and rude and that is based on experiences like that AND I've also said that some are good and some are bad then exactly HOW on earth can you say that I'm determined to find fault?


I know exactly what you've said, and yes you have said 'not all police officers are rude', demonstrating some balance. But it's the implications of what you've said initially though that I'd suggest show an underlying prejudice that maybe you're not conscious of. I'll explain why.

What I've said (_all_ I have said) is that in *THIS CASE *there is no evidence at all that the officers have been rude, yet everyone refers to *THEM* as having been rude, and yourself in particular. I've argued that such a viewpoint indicates prejudice.

Yes, I have no doubt you have met rude police officers. I have at no point at all suggested such a thing doesn't exist. Yet you have taken your negative experiences and automatically attributed that rudeness as an assumption in respect of *THESE* officers, readily accepting they _must_ have been rude if someone says so, not on the basis of any evidence presented of that (because there was none) but purely off the back of your assumptions.

You don't in any way question what the OP had to say. You're opening sentence - "Surprised you bothered to apologise" - contains the clearly implied acceptance that the officers were in the wrong and hence the OP therefore had nothing to apologise for. Instant condemnation without evidence. Prejudism, basically. Not consciously of course, but all too often I see it displayed in threads like these.

Determined to find fault? Well, if you equate that with being all too ready to assume fault regardless of a complete lack of evidence, then yes.

And this has been my point throughout. The moment anyone complains about the cops everyone just swallows it completely, never questioning what has been said and almost tripping themselves up in the rush to join in with the condemnation. In this case, where I think I've argued credibly that in fact the officers hadn't done anything wrong at all, did you not do just that?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if my impression is that some traffic coppers are arrogant and rude and that is based on experiences like that AND I've also said that some are good and some are bad then exactly HOW on earth can you say that I'm determined to find fault?
> ...


Hey, you boys created the reputation you have. Not me. If you dont like it, sort your own ranks out. Based on your own statistics the force is rife with poorly managed incidents that cause us to have this impression.

I think you've missed the point. Traffic police have created an image for themselves that is negative. I didnt do that, they did. Now, I'm experienced enough to know that it isnt all of them but overall, that is my personal experience of them. That isnt open for debate, thats MY experience and unfortunately my reaction to anything like this is inevitably tarnished by that experience as undoubtedly is yours to some other group (Do you think politicians are generally honest for example? Some undoubtedly are but unfortunately we would all meet any such claim with cynicism.).

I'm sure, particularly because you're on a forum dedicated to cars, that you arent one of them and I empathise that you are defending your profession (Stick a post up saying all sales people are the same as door to door sales people and liars and watch me kick off!) but as a member of the public with an impression based on experience that many have shared then surely you can see our point of view?

We wont solve anything here. No matter what either of us say or do there will be a copper somewhere who will pull me up and have an attitude and there will be a plank who gets pulled up and will give attitude. Problem with everything in this world from policing to politics and religion to driving is that some prat let people get involved.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

No, I don't miss the point at all. You argue that because some police officers have blotted our copy book then the rest of us have to accept that you are going to view us all in a negative fashion. You accept that your reaction to this particular reported incident was tarnished by your previous experiences. Because some cops in the past have been rude to you then it follows all cops are going to be rude?

Well, you say no. You say you understand we're not all the same. Yet in the very next breath still tarnish us all with the same brush.

I read the original post and thought, well what is it exactly that he's complaining about? I couldn't see anything in it. And there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the post that suggested the police officers had been rude. Not a thing. You just made that up, to fit into your stereotyped view of police officers. You say you didn't create the negative image of traffic officers - well, you certainly did for these two guys! You maligned those individuals without any justification at all. You took an incident in which a police officer was doing nothing more than quite correctly carrying out his duties and from it created from thin air something to add to this negative public perception. So, is our reputation actually something we deserve, or a myth you have helped create about us?

You have an expectation that police officers will be rude, and we see clearly in this case it has lead you to interpret something completely benign in a negative fashion. I have to ask then, in your prior encounters with the police, were they really all that rude? If you can interpret, "That was stupid driving. You should think of other people" as being rude then I'd suggest it's quite possible they were perfectly professional. I've said it elsewhere on this forum, someone's perception of an encounter with the police has a lot more to do with the attitudes of that individual than it has with the conduct of the police officer. Have you really judged those encounters fairly? I don't know as I wasn't there, so let's just accept it at face value as you report it. Even so, you took an attribute experienced from specific individuals and assigned it to a whole class of people.

That is prejudism.

Would you think of yourself as a racist? I'm not suggesting for a moment that you are because thankfully very few people today find that view in any way acceptable and you seem like a very reasonable person. Even then, those who hold those views know enough to keep them to themselves. Yet here you are openly displaying just exactly the same kind of prejudice and even seeking to defend it when it's pointed out to you, but it's apparently perfectly okay because it is directed at the police.

If I displayed the same kind of discrimination to anybody in my work I would quite rightly be sacked and probably prosectuted. So why would you expect me to just stand by and see it directed at us?

We are perhaps going nowhere with this but I've only hoped to encourage people to rethink their attitude to the police and recognise how quick they are to slag us off even where it's not called for - as in this case. Hopefully as a result people just might pause for a moment and think things through objectively and give us a fair chance for a change, because quite frankly I'm tired of constantly being slagged-off for things we simply never do.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark, you argue my point better than I could. Well done.

By the way, an opinion based on overwhelming experience isnt prejudice, it's an opinion formed through experience. If I was to say it rains all the time in Manchester and someone said, "No it doesnt" yet every time I went there it rained then from my point of view, it always rains in Manchester.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Leg said:


> Mark, you argue my point better than I could. Well done.
> 
> By the way, an opinion based on overwhelming experience isnt prejudice, it's an opinion formed through experience. If I was to say it rains all the time in Manchester and someone said, "No it doesnt" yet every time I went there it rained then from my point of view, it always rains in Manchester.


If you were to say "I believe it always rains in manchester, because every time I've been there it was raining", I'd assume you were an idiot with no understanding of statistics.

You're just falling into the trap of imagining that your experiences are the same as facts. The trouble with personal experience is that the person who experiences it is often (by definition) the least impartial person involved. So, to address your point, an opinion based on overwhelming personal experience isn't prejudiced in itself, but it is generally informed by the prejudices that the person already holds.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Utter rubbish. Have you been to Manchester? Even when it isnt raining it feels like it is. The statistics lie. Now over on the other side of the Pennines its bright sunshine all of the time. God is a Yorkshireman.

An idiot eh? :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Leg said:


> An idiot eh? :lol:


I was being generous. :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > An idiot eh? :lol:
> ...


I'll have to start a good few more arguments before I progress to idiot.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Leg said:


> I'll have to start a good few more arguments before I progress to idiot.


Awww... You say that like it's a bad thing.

Anyway, I didn't say you're an idiot...


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to start a good few more arguments before I progress to idiot.
> ...


Arguments are good, its the flame room.

I know, I'm being ambitous.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Leg said:


> Hey, you boys created the reputation you have. Not me.


I don't think they have created the reputation. I think the media has. We've already covered (maybe not in this thread) how the media will jump on a story for the sake of headlines and rarely follow up when things turn out to be all a big misunderstanding.

We all know that there are crap people in every profession. And whilst in command of that fact, you can't write off an entire profession or organisation. *My* experience of Sales people are the are all a bunch of twats with no knowledge in what they are selling. Doesn't mean they _all_ are, it's just I land up trying to get flogged something by somebody who thought I was born yesterday. I'll happily use a stereotype when referring to sales people - but I know they can't all be bad!



Spandex said:


> If I was to say it rains all the time in Manchester and someone said, "No it doesnt" yet every time I went there it rained then from my point of view, it always rains in Manchester.


If you were to say "I believe it always rains in manchester, because every time I've been there it was raining", I'd assume you were an idiot with no understanding of statistics.[/quote]
No need for the statistics thing, this may be shown with statistics but just common sense is sufficient.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Dash said:


> *My* experience of Sales people are the are all a bunch of twats with no knowledge in what they are selling. Doesn't mean they _all_ are, it's just I land up trying to get flogged something by somebody who thought I was born yesterday. I'll happily use a stereotype when referring to sales people - but I know they can't all be bad!


And that, is all I have said about traffic police all the way through. In your experience sales people are "all a bunch of twats" and at the same time you acknowledge they arent all like that. I've said precisely the same thing about traffic police.

You dont sound prejudiced to me, you sound like you have experienced the "twats" and that has caused you to form an opinion, a valid one too. I agree with you and rather than whinge about it I accept that not everyone in sales is the same.

In fact the reputation that the "twats" create for sales, by being completely the opposite, has been used by me and my company to great success.

If I was a traffic officer I would acknowledge that there are some arrogant and rude ones, highlight that that wasnt my style and wish the buggers didnt give me and mine such a bad reputation frankly. Either that or I would hope my superiors valued me over the rude ones and use it to gain promotion! I would also empathise with the impression the public have.

And if I was from Manchester I would apologise for all the fucking rain and not hide behind statistics. Mind you, I'm from Hull so I should apologise for the inbreeding and the women with beards I guess.

PS. You also added an impression/opinion about the media. Same thing. All of them? Nah. I dont disagree, but you see how frequently we all do it! Who created that image? The majority of the media, so much so, everyone gets tarnished.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Leg said:


> By the way, an opinion based on overwhelming experience isnt prejudice, it's an opinion formed through experience. If I was to say it rains all the time in Manchester and someone said, "No it doesnt" yet every time I went there it rained then from my point of view, it always rains in Manchester.


Well, if every time you'd been to Manchester it rained but you then came to Manchester and it was blazing sunshine and you _still_ insisted it was raining, then that might be a more accurate analogy.

I keep pointing out that there was no evidence at all in the original post that the officers had been rude. Not a jot. Yet you _insisted_ they had been rude. Just like standing in Manchester under wall-to-wall blue skies and being adamant that it's pissing down.

Read the definition - I think you'll find your approach to this case fits perfectly.



> prej·u·dice (prj-ds)
> n.
> 1.
> a. *An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts*.
> ...


The danger with tarring everyone with the same brush is that your perception of all future encounters becomes tainted. I keep making the point and you keep avoiding it - in this case the officers had actually done nothing wrong yet you condemned them. Where did that condemnation come from? From the actions of the officers? No - entirely from you. You created, from your own prejudiced ideas, a negative police encounter where no such thing had actually happened. If you did it here then isn't there a chance you've done it in your own personal encounters? I don't know, but I wonder.

You say your attitude is in some way justified because you hear so much of this sort of thing. Well, so far this week I have addressed 3 threads in which people complained about the police where on examination those complaints were groundless. If I had not come along to this thread and challenged it you would have gone away thinking, "Well there's just yet another example of rude behaviour from the police" - but you cannot deny that you have subconsciously fabricated that notion. If in just one week on just one forum unrelated to the police we have 3 examples of unjustified cop-bashing then just how much of all the rest of the negative stuff that you've automatically accepted as fact in the past was in reality just a load of utter rubbish like this one?

I suggest quite a lot, and if you are the reasonable person that I think you are then perhaps you'd reflect on that and consider that possibly you've been a little harsh in your past judgements, and maybe you ought to give the police a bit more slack.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

To be fair Mark, I think you should re read the OP and my first response.

The OP:



Rudetesh99 said:


> Right here goes..
> 
> Moved to a new location in the UK and admittedly I was a bit lost. Anyway I was following my GF who was 1 car in front who was using her sat nav to get us back home.
> 
> ...


My first response:



Leg said:


> Surprised you bothered to apologise. I generally find the traffic plod to be a bit dim and blinkered although I've encountered 2 notable exceptions in 20 odd years of driving (thats how much they stood out, I remember them and strangely I never do what I was doing when they pulled me over ever now!). I make a distinction between traffic plod and general plod though. Traffic seems to attract a certain kind of pedantic, narrow minded, arrogant time waster for some reason.


So what do we have here? Well, we have a story that is reminiscant of my own experiences. Therefore it has validity, for me, in one respect, so I empathise with the OP. However, I balance that with my own positive experiences immediately. I use words like "generally" also to make it clear that this is not a sweeping view of all traffic officers but a general view in this case based on my experience. The OP says that the Police Officer accuses him of "Stupid driving". That isnt a legality and nor is it an observation to be made by a professional driver or police officer, it is an insult, especially given the OP's circumstance and I personally wouldnt apologise to anyone who insulted me. Ok the last line maybe a bit strong but bear in mind, it is only directed at the ones who are pedantic, narrow minded, arrogant time wasters. Those that arent, arent.

Your comment regarding the sun in Manchester is invalid as I acknowledged that some traffic officers are not rude etc, in other words, the sun does shine occasionally.

I would say that the "evidence" they were rude is there in the OP, they accused him of stupid driving, ergo he is stupid, and didnt want to listen to his explanation. Sounds pretty rude to me. Unless you mean the OP is a liar? He was there, we werent, I'm not going to accuse him of lying.

Again, the definition does make it clear. I have examined the facts actually and the FACT is that with a few exceptions, I have experienced rude and arrogant traffic police. I think you will find that my posts are about my experience which is, without a doubt because I was there, a FACT. I experienced it. Or are you accusing me of lying?

I do think perception of future encounters becomes tainted, I agree. But I didnt build up this impression on my own, experience did. I didnt invent the experience the OP had, he told us it as per the quote above. Note my comments regarding that post specifically are centered around apologising to them and that is because, as stated, I wouldnt apologise to anyone who insulted me. Otherwise I merely talked about my own experience and are you going to tell me I dreamt that up?

"On examination those complaints were groundless"? In whose opinion? Yours? What examination? Come on, get real. You are hardly unbiased Mark.

I actually think that certain statements like "but you cannot deny that you have subconciously fabricated that notion" are arrogant to be honest mate. Dont tell me what I think or know eh.

I didnt make my comment to have a go at you, I just expressed some negative experience and balanced it with positive experience although admittedly, because my experience has been generally negative, then it was weighted towards the negative. You are taking it, as you do with all posts relating to the police, very personally yet I assume you are a fair and reasonable traffic officer who by his own admission knows that not all of his colleagues are and I would have thought you would wish that those who tarnish your occupation would bugger off and drive private hire cars (they would fit right in - there I go again).

Look, the point is that some traffic officers are rude and arrogant and for some reason, most of my encounters have been with those ones. Maybe its because of the cars Ive owned? I dunno. The OP states he was accused of "Stupid Driving" and then the officer didnt want to listen to his explanation and just put his window up. That is reminiscent of my experiences. I agreed, you dont like it, that's life. Feel free to slag the next sales person off you encounter and think of me. I dont care, I know I'm nothing like that person but I dont deny their existence.

The funny thing is I was watching one of those police car show things the other day and it shows an ID card thing for each officer as they come on and one had "Sales People" listed under dislikes. Prejudiced git. :wink: How can he know he dislikes me? I assume that generally speaking, he has found sales people to be unlikeable. Again, I can empathise.

Anyway Mark, we are going around in circles. Lets settle it with a competition. In 6 months we will start a thread and I'll list all the traffic coppers that have annoyed me and you list all the sales people that have annoyed you. Whilst I think I'm onto a loser, it should be entertaining.

PS. Ill give you this, the thread title is a bit out of order, especially as it sounds like only one officer spoke anyway. Rudeness is not idiocy either.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

LOL Ive just seen the thirsty cops thread and realised I may as well headbutt a brick wall.

Check out the Royal Mail one, they are at it in there too. Generalising about Posties, prejudiced buggers! :wink:

I'm off Mark, the wall isnt about to give and my forehead is bleeding.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Spandex said:


> Bikerz said:
> 
> 
> > Im with Dash here the copper was very rude. Mate was stopped and copper asked why you driving like a knob, my mate had done nothing illegal was just booting it off lights upto speed limit. That ended in a good 40min of wasted police and tax payers time and money. Copper was being a right prat!
> ...


My mate would have accpted this, but the copper thourght he would try and find somthing wrong with the car, which he failed to do so and wasted 40 min of his our our time.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> Bikerz, I think you're just exactly the same as Leg. You're determined to find fault. If someone has done something stupid telling them they have done something stupid isn't rude - it's just plain and simply stating the facts. There's absolutely nothing conceivably discourteous about it at all. It just seems you think making comment at all on someones driving is rude. Police officers are paid to keep our roads safe. If we never talked to people about their driving how on earth do you expect us to do our jobs?


Yes it was fiar enough but then to waste 40 min when they surley could have been doing somthing more productive? As a copper did you really enjoy trying to waste time and find somthing wrong? I very much doubt it.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Leg,

Our sticking point is clearly that you think a police officer commenting on someone's driving and describing it as 'stupid' is intrinsically inappropriate and rude. On my side I have made my comments on the basis that I assumed we could take it as read that on reflection we could agree that it wasn't really rude at all - because quite frankly I am at a total loss as to how you see any rudeness in that whatsoever. As I see it you may as well complain that, 'Good morning, sir. How are you today?' is rude aswell. I was therefore working on the assumption that you must have transposed the rudeness you'd experienced elsewhere into this situation, because where else could that idea have possibly come from?

I'll explain why I don't see it as rude.

Part of police duties are to maintain driving standards. It is our job when we see poor driving to make comment on it in an effort to correct it. Now nobody likes to have their driving criticised so whenever a police officer carries out this part of their duties someone is going to be upset. There's no dressing it up, but that's no reason not to do our job.

The officer was about to merge in lane, exactly in accordance with the highway code. Instead of letting him in as they should have the driver closed the gap on them. As I picture it, they quite possibly cut him up in a rather aggressive manner because after all, isn't that what most people do in this situation? Now given that such actions could possibly cause an accident leading to expensive repairs and possible injury for no other reason than to gain a single car length in a queue of traffic could that not accurately be described as a 'stupid' thing to do? It's certainly not clever!

The officer has simply commented on the driving he has seen (as is his job) describing it as exactly what it was. He hasn't dressed it up in flowery language - what he said was just simple and to the point (quite necessary given the situation where stopping for a lengthy discussion would have blocked the road). Simple and to the point, yes - but _rude_? Saying , "You're driving like a c*nt" would be rude. Saying, "You f*cking stupid tw*t" would be rude. Saying, "That was stupid driving" is _not rude_. It's not even in the same ball park by _anybody's _standards.

It' not an 'insult'. It's a comment on the individual's actions rather than on the individual himself.

I'd suggest that like so many motorists who simply cannot take _any_ kind of criticism of their driving you're being over sensitive in the extreme. Is it not possible that the reason you seem to find traffic officers in particular to be rude is becuase they are inevitably going to be criticising your driving?

But clearly that is where we differ.

So anyway, that was where I was coming from. Because I simply cannot imagine anyone seriously thinking the officer's comments were rude I could only assume something else was going on; that you were not really examining the facts properly and just transposing previous experience into the situation - in other words, applying prejudice. If you genuinely maintain that is rudeness then by all means stand by your comments and fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that and leave others to make their own judgements on it.

Enjoyable debate, though.

(Oh, and as for your challenge I've never made any comment about sales people - I don't really have an issue with people just trying to do their jobs. You must be thinking of somebody else. And my issue with the Post Office is clearly not with the individuals but the working practices adopted by the company - that's quite different to this issue.)


----------



## TT_Tesh (Feb 22, 2009)

Seriously.. lets take a chill pill.

Feel bad putting this post up now..


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Maybe we should have a prasie forum so when we meet a nice copper we can put it in there :?:


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

Bikerz said:


> Maybe we should have a prasie forum so when we meet a nice copper we can put it in there :?:


we did, but nobody posted so it was replaced with the flame room, which was a major success! :lol:

sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## westty (Jan 3, 2004)

I wonder what the cop would have done if he'd been called stupid? No doubt nothing as he wouldn't have found it rude or offensive! :roll:


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

westty said:


> I wonder what the cop would have done if he'd been called stupid? No doubt nothing as he wouldn't have found it rude or offensive! :roll:


 :lol:

Very good point, Id liek to see Mark answer that one


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

no doubt he will in due course


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Bloody hell, people say considerably worse things than that almost daily. If I took offence at such triviality I'd never be able to get on and do anything!

Thankfully I'm a bit more grown up than that.

In fact, words of abuse that would constitute an offence if directed from one member of the public to another are not considered by the courts to be an offence if directed at a police officer, because we are made of sterner stuff and don't go crying off just because someone called us nasty names.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> we are made of sterner stuff and don't go crying off just because someone called us nasty names.


You should watch some of these cops programs on TV. Every other sentence is "Section 5. Public Order Act" and slam people into a wall.

To be honest - your points on people's views on the Police not being fair, a lot of it probably comes from these programs where they more often than not look like arrogant nobs.


----------



## blackers (Nov 15, 2006)

Hardly 

Most of the programmes I've seen show people who have had far too much to drink, who swear at the police & call them far worse names than "stupid". 
They get warned a few times, continue to be abusive and sometimes violent and then get arrested.

I always think the Police show amazing patience and reason when dealing with someone who is drunk and being abusive, I wouldn't call them arrogant nobs, still maybe we were watching different programmes.


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

blackers said:


> Hardly
> 
> Most of the programmes I've seen show people who have had far too much to drink, who swear at the police & call them far worse names than "stupid".
> They get warned a few times, continue to be abusive and sometimes violent and then get arrested.
> ...


I agree, they very rarely want to make an arrest and it is a last resort. Much better people out there to fill the cells with.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

blackers said:


> Hardly
> 
> Most of the programmes I've seen show people who have had far too much to drink, who swear at the police & call them far worse names than "stupid".
> They get warned a few times, continue to be abusive and sometimes violent and then get arrested.
> ...


must be coz the ones i see, along with the presenters are a bunch of supersilious , selfrightious. selfopinionated twats, !!!   
ps,, i am not saying all cops are like that as i have met some fine ones, even traffic ones !!!! and Mr M Davis, whom we all agree is a fine chap !!!


----------



## blackers (Nov 15, 2006)

ah, you must have Sky then roddy 

mind you, you are right about the presenters


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Dash said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > we are made of sterner stuff and don't go crying off just because someone called us nasty names.
> ...


 Ive noticed this. Mark why dont the police just walk away as they dont seem to get anywhere with them? Is it duty of care? Id just leave them, fair play to the police to put up with that, knowing its a waste of time and they will see them same place next week :roll: :lol:


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Bikerz said:


> Mark why dont the police just walk away as they dont seem to get anywhere with them?


Someone who is so drunk at 1.30am that they will mouth-off at the police and not have the sense to just go home when repeatedly asked to do so is as often as not the guy who decides to kick someone's head in at 2.00am. It's prevention as much as anything else.

It's not that we're the least bit arsed about someone having a go at us. The comment made above is absolutely right - locking up people is the very last thing we want to do and it is only done when _they_ simply leave us no choice. Someone who just throws the odd comment and then wanders on is not much of an issue; it's the persistent idiots who clearly think they are ten-men and want to take on the cops and the rest of the world - they are the dangerous ones whom we can't afford to leave out on the streets.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> Someone who is so drunk at 1.30am that they will mouth-off at the police and not have the sense to just go home when repeatedly asked to do so is as often as not the guy who decides to kick someone's head in at 2.00am. It's prevention as much as anything else.


That seems fair enough.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

I always admire the cops when i see this, Id just put him or her in back of van, then take miles away from anywhere and leave them there, keep doing it and they can have a fight and only hurt other prats. Infact Mark I think you should surgest this, I certainly wouldnt complain


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Bikerz said:


> I always admire the cops when i see this, Id just put him or her in back of van, then take miles away from anywhere and leave them there, keep doing it and they can have a fight and only hurt other prats. Infact Mark I think you should surgest this, I certainly wouldnt complain


Oh, it's not a new idea! The good old days . . .


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

:lol: Ive heard about these good old days, but being 22 never experienced them, sounds like hevan


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Bikerz said:


> :lol: Ive heard about these good old days, but being 22 never experienced them, sounds like hevan


Have you not seen 'Life on Mars' then?


----------

