It's pretty acceptable and applauded for police to drive into and knock over those twats on scooters, so I'm sure that can be extended to ATVs too!
Re: Randomness
Posted: Fri May 03, 2024 10:07 pm
by Rich B
Terrible decision. You can't just drive into the path of someone, intentionally causing a serious collision, based on the excuse that you were worried they might end up in a serious collision later.
I hope that police officer is never allowed to drive a car again tbh.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Fri May 03, 2024 10:33 pm
by mik
I’m not sure the cop intended there to be a collision. As I understand it, the guy was riding an off-road vehicle on public road; and from the vid it looks like he’s not doing so at a sensible speed. I can’t tell if it’s within the speed limit. Maybe if it was a road vehicle it would have been able to stop in the space available (did he only have rear brakes?) and the windscreen is cracked by the riders head : rather than a helmet he went for the alternative head protection offered by a black balclava.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Fri May 03, 2024 10:52 pm
by jamcg
Lockpicking lawyers April fools that I missed
Re: Randomness
Posted: Fri May 03, 2024 11:03 pm
by Rich B
mik wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:33 pm
I’m not sure the cop intended there to be a collision. As I understand it, the guy was riding an off-road vehicle on public road; and from the vid it looks like he’s not doing so at a sensible speed. I can’t tell if it’s within the speed limit. Maybe if it was a road vehicle it would have been able to stop in the space available (did he only have rear brakes?) and the windscreen is cracked by the riders head : rather than a helmet he went for the alternative head protection offered by a black balclava.
So the quad may or may not not be road legal, it may or may not be speeding, we know helmets aren't law for quads. Clearly the appropriate solution is to effectively ram it off the road and seriously injure the rider to find out.
mik wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:33 pm
I’m not sure the cop intended there to be a collision. As I understand it, the guy was riding an off-road vehicle on public road; and from the vid it looks like he’s not doing so at a sensible speed. I can’t tell if it’s within the speed limit. Maybe if it was a road vehicle it would have been able to stop in the space available (did he only have rear brakes?) and the windscreen is cracked by the riders head : rather than a helmet he went for the alternative head protection offered by a black balclava.
So the quad may or may not not be road legal, it may or may not be speeding, we know helmets aren't law for quads. Clearly the appropriate solution is to effectively ram it off the road and seriously injure the rider to find out.
There’s lots that’s not clear from the vid to be fair, but I think the cop intended to block his path and force him to stop. If he was intent on ramming the dude off the road he’d have done so far more effectively by taking a direct path to ram the guy off the road. It feels a bit FAFO to me, but maybe that’s unfair. Dunno.
mik wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:33 pm
I’m not sure the cop intended there to be a collision. As I understand it, the guy was riding an off-road vehicle on public road; and from the vid it looks like he’s not doing so at a sensible speed. I can’t tell if it’s within the speed limit. Maybe if it was a road vehicle it would have been able to stop in the space available (did he only have rear brakes?) and the windscreen is cracked by the riders head : rather than a helmet he went for the alternative head protection offered by a black balclava.
So the quad may or may not not be road legal, it may or may not be speeding, we know helmets aren't law for quads. Clearly the appropriate solution is to effectively ram it off the road and seriously injure the rider to find out.
There’s lots that’s not clear from the vid to be fair, but I think the cop intended to block his path and force him to stop. If he was intent on ramming the dude off the road he’d have done so far more effectively by taking a direct path to ram the guy off the road. It feels a bit FAFO to me, but maybe that’s unfair. Dunno.
Next time I go over the speed limit, I'll be aware that it's an appropriate response for a police car coming the other way to turn into my path with no time for me to stop to deliberately cause a massive accident. After all, I was FA.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Fri May 03, 2024 11:41 pm
by Mito Man
But that is in America and the chap is wearing a balaclava. Crashing off is preferable to being shot multiple times I think!
Rich B wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 11:03 pm
So the quad may or may not not be road legal, it may or may not be speeding, we know helmets aren't law for quads. Clearly the appropriate solution is to effectively ram it off the road and seriously injure the rider to find out.
There’s lots that’s not clear from the vid to be fair, but I think the cop intended to block his path and force him to stop. If he was intent on ramming the dude off the road he’d have done so far more effectively by taking a direct path to ram the guy off the road. It feels a bit FAFO to me, but maybe that’s unfair. Dunno.
Next time I go over the speed limit, I'll be aware that it's an appropriate response for a police car coming the other way to turn into my path with no time for me to stop to deliberately cause a massive accident. After all, I was FA.
Only if you may or may not be in your off road vehicle.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Fri May 03, 2024 11:55 pm
by Rich B
Mito Man wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 11:41 pm
But that is in America and the chap is wearing a balaclava. Crashing off is preferable to being shot multiple times I think!
I expect the cop got out and put a couple of shots in to make sure he'd finished the job!
Re: Randomness
Posted: Sat May 04, 2024 12:01 am
by mik
I heard no shots were fired, but the cop gave the perp a compensatory free pass for aggrevated burglary as he was also a member of a local pub soccer team.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Sat May 04, 2024 12:13 am
by Rich B
mik wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 12:01 am
I heard no shots were fired, but the cop gave the perp a compensatory free pass for aggrevated burglary as he was also a member of a local pub soccer team.
Mito Man wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 11:41 pm
But that is in America and the chap is wearing a balaclava. Crashing off is preferable to being shot multiple times I think!
I expect the cop got out and put a couple of shots in to make sure he'd finished the job!
Rich B wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 11:03 pm
So the quad may or may not not be road legal, it may or may not be speeding, we know helmets aren't law for quads. Clearly the appropriate solution is to effectively ram it off the road and seriously injure the rider to find out.
There’s lots that’s not clear from the vid to be fair, but I think the cop intended to block his path and force him to stop. If he was intent on ramming the dude off the road he’d have done so far more effectively by taking a direct path to ram the guy off the road. It feels a bit FAFO to me, but maybe that’s unfair. Dunno.
Next time I go over the speed limit, I'll be aware that it's an appropriate response for a police car coming the other way to turn into my path with no time for me to stop to deliberately cause a massive accident. After all, I was FA.
I’m sure somewhere it said it was a pedestrian/cycle trail i.e. not a road. The quad should never have been there. So to make the comparison fair, next time you’re speeding your car down a bridleway, I support the police blocking the bridleway to stop you.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Sat May 04, 2024 12:10 pm
by Beany
Yeah, a lot of replies from locals saying that the road was closed to motor vehicles four years ago, and everyone local knows it - it's specifically intended for walkers/cyclists.
So you're like to see a wobbly kid on a bike who could veer all over the road, or a whole group of people round a blind corner spread all across the road as they walk. Versus an ATV twat doing a solid 40-50mph.
Also, the road is the full with of a normal road because it was one before - so unless that that cop car broke the laws of reality and suddenly became 40ft long, there would have been space for the ATV rider to get past if they'd been even vaguely, remotely in control of the vehicle.
I generally lean on the cynical side when it comes to cops actions, but in this case, nah, fuck that guy.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Sat May 04, 2024 1:04 pm
by Mito Man
I don’t think it’s possible to be in full control of an ATV above 30 mph, it gets fucking terrifying at 35 and feels more akin to a hovercraft floating above the surface
Although I noticed the one in the crash seemed to have road tyres so maybe it’s less bad.
Re: Randomness
Posted: Sat May 04, 2024 2:09 pm
by Beany
I mean, did you also notice the one in the crash, er, crashed upon trying to brake and steer at the same time?
I don't consider that to be less bad
Re: Randomness
Posted: Sat May 04, 2024 2:37 pm
by mik
jamcg wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:52 pm
Lockpicking lawyers April fools that I missed
