Who is at fault...biker or police?

The cop was definitely being ignorant and acting like a prick, but I think what he was saying was correct (minus the anger and aggressive comments), he said:

Do you always ride in the gutter?
Perfectly logical. The biker had horrible road position. He says it is for his safety, but no safety course tells you to ride over there. You're told to stay away from the gutter because it is dangerous. (grids, debris, and other road users trying to pass).

Do you always hit your brakes like that when somebody is changing a lane?
Again a perfectly fine statement. The biker broke way too hard (you can see his helmet move forward as he slams on). No need to brake like that just because somebody changes lanes (a whole car length+ ahead).

 

The rider had positioned himself in a position that gave him a good view of the road.
He could clearly see any grids or debris in the road in front of the car in front of him and beyond.
He could see road signs to the near side.

I was taught to look down both the near and off side of vehicles (particular trucks and buses) depending on the geography of the road.

Had the biker been to the offside (left) of his lane he may not have been in the cars blind spot. I like to think how I set my mirrors in a car, I would have seen him, but Mrs C wouldn't have.
The rider clearly has no concept of Roadcraft page 154-5, overtaking situations to avoid, but then neither did I (concusiously) 10 years ago.
A traffic policer officer in any vehicle should.

As has been said. Not great motoring by any contributing party, but the copper deserved a proper butt reaming, as would any other motorist. And if the copper was traffic, he should have been kicked down to the beat at least.

 

so if you were the biker you'd drop your pants and take it then? i somehow doubt it

 

Sorry, this is a very delayed response to this particular bit, but my objections to it are strong enough to bring it up again, lol

I may be way off here.... but no... just no... This is more an example of trickery to try and 'prove' a point than anything else

Notice the first 'fast' shots are a single unmoving straight direction of travel towards a 'target' point... the guy on the right can move his hand out of the way by simply moving outside of this very narrow path of 'danger'... the guy throwing the punches wants these to miss to help prove his point, so he makes no effort to hide where he is aiming, nor does he adjust his aim to try and make the shot land...

However, on the slow speed shot, he makes the timing of it much less obvious (therefore less predictable), and whilst much slower than the first strikes, he tracks the target (hand) and adjusts to ensure contact... this is obvious by the fact that the first two shots are directly in front of him, and the 'slower' shot has been adjusted so it's slightly to the side (the punchers left hand side)

Sorry, couldn't let that slide... though after re-watching if anyone disagrees please feel free to slate me

And no, I wouldn't want a punch off the guy, lol

Live Forever or Die Trying

 

I'm not convinced that the Yanks subscribe to Roadcraft as, with almost everything else, they follow their own rules of right and wrong, regardless of whether they actually are right or wrong! :lol: