Police stopped me.

Conor_3

NovaBlack wrote: »

err yes.... a kid jumps out 5 metres front of me after a football from behind a parked car.. i do an emergency stop... that makes me useless...

sorry... next time what.. do i continue and hit them.. and then im not useless... right..

sorry just a bit confused by the logic here...

Doesn't surprise me. What was the post I answered going on about? Stopping at traffic lights. So have a guess where I was referring to the emergency stop taking place.

NovaBlack wrote: »

oh and i guess on your driving test they test you on your ability to perform an emergency stop because they like to know you CAN PERFORM ONE (else instant fail) , and therefore you are completely useless and fit to drive on the roads... again... logic slightly confused there

You don't do an emergency stop on a driving test. You do a controlled stop. If you locked the wheels in pre-ABS days, you failed.

And as a decent driver seeing a child playing with a football at the side of the road, I'd already have figured them running out after the ball as a possible scenario and adjusted my driving accordingly.

Guess that's why I've the equivalent of 150 years worth of average motoring both points and accident free....

Steve_xx

Conor wrote: »

And as a decent driver seeing a child playing with a football at the side of the road, I'd already have figured them running out after the ball as a possible scenario and adjusted my driving accordingly.

Guess that's why I've the equivalent of 150 years worth of average motoring both points and accident free....

Yes, but who knows what the future holds. An accident is by definition an unexpected and unintentioned event.

You are assuming that you would have sight of the child here. However, what if the child was playing on the sidewalk and was shielded by a parked lorry? You may not see the child then.

tomstickland

Bokkens wrote: »

As you clearly have difficulty in understanding Red Amber and Green you should rely on the help of a solicitor if you make any driving errors and have to appear at court..

I have no difficulty in understanding Red, Amber and Green. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding your illogical English though. Please expound the following statements in clear English.

Red is do not proceed.
Amber is stop.

What is the difference between stopping and not proceeding?

Red means do not move.
Amber means don't go any further.

Can something not go any further when it is still moving?

before_hollywood

Conor wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me. What was the post I answered going on about? Stopping at traffic lights. So have a guess where I was referring to the emergency stop taking place.





You don't do an emergency stop on a driving test. You do a controlled stop. If you locked the wheels in pre-ABS days, you failed.

And as a decent driver seeing a child playing with a football at the side of the road, I'd already have figured them running out after the ball as a possible scenario and adjusted my driving accordingly.

Guess that's why I've the equivalent of 150 years worth of average motoring both points and accident free....

when i got my provisional in 1999 it was an emergency stop (well thats what my instructor who had about 40-odd years driving experience and 20-odd years instructing experience called it)

and i learned in 2 nissan sunnys (a 1987 and a 1989), a citroen ax, a ford ka and a skoda fabia (no abs on all but one of those).

Advocate

Advocate wrote: »

We pay your wages, matey. The public are fully entitled to ask you why you're pulling them over instead of catching burglars. You're a public servant. Remember that.

amandada wrote: »

WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I claim my point!!!! Wonder how many more times I'll hear this at work today when the person on the other end of the line doesn't like what they're hearing and can't come back with a better line!:rolleyes:

Thank you, amandada, for so brilliantly illustrating the point I was originally trying to make. Case proven, m'lud.

(N.B. Amandada works for the police, if anyone wasn't aware, and is another one of those arrogant cocky types who seem to be under an illusion that the police are completely unaccountable to the public, can do what on earth they want to do, and can behave as judge, jury and executioner in every situation.)

amandada

Advocate wrote: »

Thank you, amandada, for so brilliantly illustrating the point I was originally trying to make. Case proven, m'lud.

(N.B. Amandada works for the police, if anyone wasn't aware, and is another one of those arrogant cocky types who seem to be under an illusion that the police are completely unaccountable to the public, can do what on earth they want to do, and can behave as judge, jury and executioner in every situation.)

what can I say-you have my entire personality and working life sussed:rolleyes:













:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl:

NovaBlack_2

Conor wrote: »

And as a decent driver seeing a child playing with a football at the side of the road, I'd already have figured them running out after the ball as a possible scenario and adjusted my driving accordingly.

Guess that's why I've the equivalent of 150 years worth of average motoring both points and accident free....

wow it must be your x ray vision and ability to see THROUGH parked vehicles. im my scenario i said running out from behind a parked car giving you about 5 metres to stop, when you have no idea they were there. but i forgot you can see through these and they dont pose a problem for you, unlike us mere mortals. and it was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario that COULD arise. You cant change it and say 'oh i would think perhaps they were there', that wasn't the scenario.

unlike you, although i have 6 years no claims, and havent ever had any accident as of yet (touch wood) i recognise that circumstances will at some point arise where an accident is unavoidable, through no fault of my own.

fbs_4800

Advocate wrote: »

Thank you, amandada, for so brilliantly illustrating the point I was originally trying to make. Case proven, m'lud.

(N.B. Amandada works for the police, if anyone wasn't aware, and is another one of those arrogant cocky types who seem to be under an illusion that the police are completely unaccountable to the public, can do what on earth they want to do, and can behave as judge, jury and executioner in every situation.)

You sound like a defence solicitor or a Human Rights Activist. No one on here has claimed or stated that the Police act as judge, jury and executioner. No one has stated they would be right to do that.

MOST 'reasonable' people on here accept that Police Officers are humans. NOT the type of blank robots who follow the rules by the letter and have no room for human emotion.

As you state, the Police should rely on the facts of the situation and nothing else (words to that effect as I can't be bothered to go and quote you.) So you're saying Police SHOULDN'T ever exercise their right to discretion? No, no, no. They should rely on the facts. If you break the Law - we WILL punish you.

Ridiculous. It's THAT sort of attitude that doesn't make the world get along.

Stop trying to look for excuses to knock people. No-one is trying to be smart, clever or patronising on here. They're simply telling it the way it is.

Steve_xx

fbs_4800 wrote: »

You sound like a defence solicitor or a Human Rights Activist. No one on here has claimed or stated that the Police act as judge, jury and executioner. No one has stated they would be right to do that.

MOST 'reasonable' people on here accept that Police Officers are humans. NOT the type of blank robots who follow the rules by the letter and have no room for human emotion.

As you state, the Police should rely on the facts of the situation and nothing else (words to that effect as I can't be bothered to go and quote you.) So you're saying Police SHOULDN'T ever exercise their right to discretion? No, no, no. They should rely on the facts. If you break the Law - we WILL punish you.

Ridiculous. It's THAT sort of attitude that doesn't make the world get along.

Stop trying to look for excuses to knock people. No-one is trying to be smart, clever or patronising on here. They're simply telling it the way it is.

I think what we're saying is that we have a basic right to be treated respectfully. I think we're also saying that all too often that police officers are treating people without the respect due and they are actually humiliating people as a matter of course. Some police officers speak to people in a way that can only be described as disgraceful.

This naturally results in distrust and dislike of the police. Police authorities don't seem be able to recognise this fact because the problem goes on.

fbs_4800

Steve_xx wrote: »

I think what we're saying is that we have a basic right to be treated respectfully. I think we're also saying that all too often that police officers are treating people without the respect due and they are actually humiliating people as a matter of course. Some police officers speak to people in a way that can only be described as disgraceful.

This naturally results in distrust and dislike of the police. Police authorities don't seem be able to recognise this fact because the problem goes on.

Totally agreed. We ALL have a right to be treated with respect. Christ - I've been on enough diversity courses to have that hammered into me. But that can't just be associated with the Police. They're as bad as anyone else - rightly or wrongly. No matter WHAT job you name (bar maybe nuns ) you'll ALWAYS get SOMEONE who's having a bad day or has a bad attitude. Someone said above - 'Police should be Professionals and not have a bad day.' REALLY!? lol

Like everyone else, I have the right to be treated with respect when I get a reminder to pay a bill and I ring some snotty person in a Callcentre who treats me with nothing but contempt. It happens. I go to McDonalds for a burger and sometimes I get a bad attitude from the person behind the till.

I don't start harping on about how I pay their wages and if it wasn't for me they wouldn't have a job - because that's not fair on the other 30-odd employees crammed behind the counter working their a$$es off.

The only thing I disagree is when you say all too often. There are thousands of Police Officers out there 24 hours a day who complete hundreds of thousands of calls and arrest a lot of people for committing crime. Not to mention finding mispers, helping confused people, dealing with marriage break downs and domestics and chasing kids around the streets.

You just don't ever hear about that. The problem is that the few that DO have a bad attitude is all that people like to talk about. And too soon it suddenly becomes taken as read that that's what we're all like. And that's not fair.