Picture the scene. It is a fine sunny summer day. The time is noonish. A car driven by a me (a lone youngish female) is moving at moderate speed along a straight, semi-rural A road that is flanked by green fields. No houses are in view. There is no on-coming traffic. To the rear of my car are a number of black-clad motorcyclists.
Suddenly, I am overtaken by two of the cyclists who then position themselves side by side a few feet in front of my car. They reduce speed causing me to slow down accordingly. I decide to over-take but when preparing to do so I become aware that there is a third biker half way along the off-side of the car. Puzzled I look in the rear-view and spot two other bikers side by side to the immediate rear of my car who are also travelling at the same speed as the other three.
I am now effectively boxed in. If I increase speed I will hit the two in front. If I pull out I will hit the one on the side. If I brake the rear two will hit the back of my car. None of the bikers have looked directly at me. The situation is so bizarre that I decide that no eye contact is a darn good idea.
As we progress I become a little uncertain as to what their game plan is other that to scare the living daylights out of me. I am very conscious that the road is still empty of other traffic. I keep my eyes peeled for a left hand junction and decide that I would make a fast unannounced left turn as and when, then straddle the centre of that country lane and hope that they couldn’t get in front again. No such luck – no left turn.
Suddenly, at a point on the road when we were approaching a hill, and without any visible signal to each other, the bikers in front increased speed, the centre one overtook me followed by the last pair. Then they all disappeared over the brow of the hill leaving me to continue more slowly in a state of decreasing tension.
I have wondered on the odd occasion over the years just what was the point of the exercise. They seemed highly disciplined; they acted in unison so presumably they were well practiced in this manoeuvre and one supposes that it was only carried out because the road was empty. Was it a ‘joke’ they played on lone females on empty roads? I don’t know – any theories?
Rita
|
Rozzers practicing. But you should have clocked one of their numbers and reported it. They ahve no right to do this.
HJ
|
Would have agreed with HJ if the bikes or riders had Police livery, then they would be on T-PAC Exercise (Tactical Pursuit and Containment)but NO WAY would they have departed without an explanation as to this behaviour.
Male Chauvenism and a fun thing by idiots is my guess.
DVD
|
|
|
yea probably
i got boxed in one night by police cars and forced to the side of the road
which i thought was quite funny cos i would have stopped at the first sign of a blue light
was surrounded by a circle of about 20 coppers who thought i was going to run for it
funnily enough i'd seen them acting suspicious miles back, and had been driving mega slow and careful on purpose (even told my back seat passenger to put the seat belt on - which was the only offence I could possible have been committing)
was hillarious when i just stood there and said "hello lads"
they were watching for cars being knicked from that town on a saturday night, on the road apparently they always get taken down
was given some nonsense story about "weve stopped you for driving erratically" because I know dam well they could not do a random stop
still got a ticket to produce my docs later
funnily enough my brothers girlfriend at the time was a copper and she heard my name and address being checked over the radio, and paid attention because she knew the address, and she subsequently confirmed the "erratic" bit was just made up nonsense
all in all another classic example of the police hassling those who are their natural supporters
and they didnt even mention the seat belt in the back being put on as they watched!
|
Have a look at Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988 which gives the Police power to stop a vehicle. You may be confused that they are not allowed to randomly stop for purposes of breath test. Not so if they want to talk to driver about other matters or check docs etc.
......and IF your vehicle had been stolen and as a result of the stop recovered and Scroat arrested, jeepers I wouldn't like to have been around at that rant and rave and the names they would have been called.
Your friend in the job may have committed a discipline offence in telling all and sundry about you being checked over the Plod radio.
DVD.
|
Re
"Have a look at Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988 which gives the Police power to stop a vehicle. You may be confused that they are not allowed to randomly stop for purposes of breath test. Not so if they want to talk to driver about other matters or check docs etc."
Dunno, but talking to a senior plod officer was reliably informed that any of his juniors caught stopping people with no obvious suspicious behaviour or symptoms would be dealt with by him - lets be honest theyve got enough real villans to hassle
......and IF your vehicle had been stolen and as a result of the stop recovered and Scroat arrested, jeepers I wouldn't like to have been around at that rant and rave and the names they would have been called.
If it had been stolen it would probably have been
i) reported as such
ii) driven wildly
iii) had smashed window/lock barrel etc
If they caught a car thief I'd be the first to congratulate them
Your friend in the job may have committed a discipline offence in telling all and sundry about you being checked over the Plod radio.
Wasnt all and sundry, it was her boyfriend and his brother, Maybe, what do you want me to do report her ? Police radio isnt that hard to listen to anyways is it ? Hardly top secret stuff...
What was worse was the bland acceptance that the "We've stopped you because you looked like you were driving erratically sir" was just standard patter to divert any subsequent complaint about hassling innocent motorists
|
|
|
Just for a bit of balance I did have a company car knicked one Xmas hols, and I reported it stolen without even knowing the reg number (I know they looked at me very strangely) but I hadnt had it long, the company had the documents - and was shut over the hols
Anyway a nice young copper drove it round later that night and said "is this it?" I had a look and said "yes thanks" and went to a lot of trouble to thank him
Theyd spotted it parked up with the lock barrel smashed
So hey I congratulate that young boby whereever he is now!
|
|
|
|
|
crazed, I think the driver's only responsible for rear seatbelt wearing if the passenger's under 15
|
good point, but still a valid reason for a stop i suppose
wasnt impressed with being boxed in and forced to stop by being surrounded by cars that slowed to a stop
a simple blue light and stop request would have been enough
|
|
|
if the passenger's under 15
14 actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very dangerous thing to do if they were police. Had you considered yourself under serious threat and driven through them or panic braked they would not have had much of a case for any damage or injuries they received.
In the same situation and not realising they were coppers I might well have taken the attitude that I was in danger of being attacked and done something about it.
|
Tom -
Exactly what would you have done? I don't know that they were coppers; and they weren't overtly threatening me. Initially I was puzzled, then intimidated to a degree. If I had thought that they were going ram me then perhaps I would have driven hard through them; as it was they forced me to drive slowly, boxed in, but no physical or verbal abuse was offered. Our speed was low, 20ish mph., this for about 1 1/2-2 miles. There seemed to be nothing obviously agressive in their attitude. But of course, when one reflects on it they were in total control. Perhaps that is where the answer lies.
Rita
|
Rita,
What I would have done would have depended on what I considered the threat to my safety to have been. I would never consider getting involved in any confrontation with another road user, but if I was put in a position where I felt somebody was trying to force me to stop in order to commit some sort of assault then I would do what I thought nescessary to protect myself. If that meant forcing one or more of them off the road then so be it. Their actions were foolish to say the least, whether they were police on a training exercise or a bunch of jokers. In a battle between a car and a bike there can only be one winner.
|
|
|
|
Rita,
From your post you say you have wondered about it over the years, without wanting to be to nosy, how long ago was this?
Bill
|
Seems to me that telling the backseat occupant to put his seatbelt on was a akin to: "belt up in the back, we're gonna show these rozzers how to drive..." etc.
Perhaps this belting up was noticed (as you indicate in your post) and they were expecting something more than you gave?
dan
|
naw asking rear passenger to put seatbelt on was a prudent step given that is was obvious to me something was up (had been watched from several places over a long spell - it was obvious there was something going on - which indeed there was)
i would have got stopped anyways, and they didnt even mention seatbelts, as was confirmed by the "were checking for cars being knicked along this road" story
|
|
|
|
Bill -
20ish, if memory serves. Doesn't always, these days.
Rita
|
This is a fascinating and disturbing incident, but not, I think, a totally isolated one.
Last week I inadvertently caused a bike rider minor inconvenience because I did not see him in my blind spot. He reacted angrily by cutting in front of me, and then carrying out just the manoeuvre described - ie slowing down very gradually. I simply maintained my speed (about 30 in a limited area) and watched the gap close slowly. When it was about 2 feet he gave up, gave an angry gesture, and accelerated away leaving half his back tyre spread on the road.
I have noticed a tendency in a (I hope) minority of bikers to behave as if they had a charmed life. Some years ago a pair tried to move me over onto the pavement so that they could ride down the middle of the road. They gave up when a lorry thundered down the middle towards them.
The sinister operation described was obviously of a much more serious nature, and potentially criminally lethal. It seems to me the risk they were running was of 2 kinds:
1) the car driver might have panicked, unpredictably
2) the driver might have been one of the increasing number of professionals who have been on a course and taught how to deal with situations threatening robbery, hijacking, etc.
I remember from a self-defence course I once attended that there are two rules:
1) Escape. Smile, walk away, run, duck into a shop.
2) Attack with sudden and deadly confidence your opponent's most vulnerable spot.
The vulnerable point in this scenario is the 2 outer bikers. So I would suggest;
1) Touch brakes without slowing
2) Slow gently without braking
3) Ease out gradually. This will make the outer pair feel vulnerable, and no longer in control
4) Finally, as a last resort, swerve outwards, brake sharply, accelerate rapidly.
I think someone made the point that if you genuinely have good reason to feel under threat, you are entitled to defend yourself, even if it later turned out that it was 'only' a police exercise.
I remember a case of someone charged with trying to run down a policeman holding a radargun. It emerged that he was just back from service in Northern Ireland, and had been taught that very technique in dealing with real roadside gunmen.
|
"I remember a case of someone charged with trying to run down a policeman holding a radargun. It emerged that he was just back from service in Northern Ireland, and had been taught that very technique in dealing with real roadside gunmen."
If only I'd have known that the other day when I got done...
|
|
|
"The vulnerable point in this scenario is the 2 outer bikers."
I would suggest that it is the two behind who are vulnerable, since if their front wheel meets your bumper they will, in all probability, come off. So brake hard and get them first.
The second line of attack is the one on the outside who you can force into the opposite kerb or oncoming traffic by easing outwards.
The two in front are more difficult since if you ram them and knock then off they will land up under your car, therefore probably bringing you to a halt as well. I would suggest that, having eliminated the other three gradually slow to a halt, ram them whilst they are stationary, back off and go round them whilst they pick themselves up.
|
Yes, true. What I meant was vulnerable to a little bit of pressure first, to see what they would do next, and possibly back off from the confrontation alltogether.
The difficulty with the 2 at the back is that it is all or nothing- either they stop in time, which leaves the whole process continuing but at a slower speed, with them still in control, or they hit the back of the car, leaving the other 4 now ahead but still in control.
The sideways option as you say gradually eases them into the other bank, or oncoming traffic, but is reversible before it gets to that stage.
This is all theoretical though. It would be interesting to hear what a real security/self-defence instructor would say, and to whether anyne else has noticed this kind of intimidation/control tendency, in bikers or other drivers.
|
And to think, you can't even use your mobile phone to call for help, for fear of prosecution.
Bikers would probably get let off with a warning by boys in blue, you would get done for driving without due care and attention!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
