South West Bikers | Motorcycle Forum

You have to ask yourself why the copper didn't tug him when he got to the first roundabout, instead of following him for over ten minutes - imagine the sh!t-fight if there'd been an accident when he was following him later on, doing 100mph in a 30 zone when he could have pulled him ages earlier??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2PBMGmUjTE

your views peeps?

i commented on that vid months ago sying exactly the same thing ridiculous isnt it? what would they have done if he'd then gone and ran over a kid or something!?

Ooops, has this one been on here before?

yeh a log time ago though mate

don`t think he could pull him over because he was unmarked

ock wrote:don`t think he could pull him over because he was unmarked

he had lights? ..he used em to get that car out of his way?

unless the copper is in uniform the motorist doesnt have to stop.

"Failure to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle when required by a constable in uniform or traffic officer.
Under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer. Breach of section 163 is an offence.

Under section 163(4), a constable in uniform may arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that the person has committed an offence under section 163. However, it should be noted that section 163(4) is to be repealed from a date to be appointed (see the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, Schedule 7, paragraph 27). See Part 3 of the 2005 Act in relation to powers of arrest; these powers are to be brought into force from a date to be appointed."

The copper was there to gather evidence after complaints from motorists, he wasn't there to stop him

GSXRsi wrote:unless the copper is in uniform the motorist doesnt have to stop.

"Failure to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle when required by a constable in uniform or traffic officer.
Under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer. Breach of section 163 is an offence.

Under section 163(4), a constable in uniform may arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that the person has committed an offence under section 163. However, it should be noted that section 163(4) is to be repealed from a date to be appointed (see the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, Schedule 7, paragraph 27). See Part 3 of the 2005 Act in relation to powers of arrest; these powers are to be brought into force from a date to be appointed."

The copper was there to gather evidence after complaints from motorists, he wasn't there to stop him

that answers it then!

GSXRsi wrote:unless the copper is in uniform the motorist doesnt have to stop.

Actually that is wrong.

Granted, he would not have been able to pull the other rider over because he had no means of identifying himself whilst moving, but as I understand it at one point, the officer pulled over and observed the offending rider filling up.

That is the point where a responsible Police officer would have said enough is enough, gone over, identified himself by producing his brief, (ID), and nicked him.

A Police officer, even out of uniform and off duty, has the same powers to arrest a person as one who is in uniform and on duty.

im sure si knows what hes talking about a bit more than you do

oh welcome to swb too

Stately wrote:

GSXRsi wrote:unless the copper is in uniform the motorist doesnt have to stop.

Actually that is wrong.

Granted, he would not have been able to pull the other rider over because he had no means of identifying himself whilst moving, but as I understand it at one point, the officer pulled over and observed the offending rider filling up.

That is the point where a responsible Police officer would have said enough is enough, gone over, identified himself by producing his brief, (ID), and nicked him.

A Police officer, even out of uniform and off duty, has the same powers to arrest a person as one who is in uniform and on duty.

So within ur own post u have just stated that the officer pulled over and observed the offending rider filling up.........guess what......that means the rider will have stopped so therefore the officer would not have to be in uniform as he would not have been stopping the offending rider, he stopped on his own accord to fill up.

Granted yes an officer is never off duty as such but there are certain powers that require an officer to be in uniform when acting on those powers......stopping a mechanically propelled vehicle is one of those powers.

The officer was there to gather evidence nothing more, he was specifically tasked to film that rider following complaints from other motorists. not sure what evidence he got before the offending rider filled up and ur right it coulda prob stopped there but by all accounts the offending rider was enjoying his commute to work a tad too much everyday on the same road at the same time

From Wiltshire Bikers forum, where I picked up the original thread link, just posted:

Regards unmarked police vehicles,they all carry discrete lights and siren so that clears up that matter! Here's an excert of the police forces side of things;-

The force said in a statement: ‘Mr Collins was arrested following numerous complaints from residents in Hastings and drivers on the A21, who reported a motorcyclist riding dangerously and at excessive speed on a daily basis.

‘The method of riding was considered so extreme by investigating officers from the Sussex Road Policing Unit that normal stopping procedures were not considered appropriate. Instead, the rider was safely tracked using unmarked cars and an unmarked motorcycle in order to gather evidence to support a prosecution. Having risk-assessed the intelligence relating to the rider there was also a possibility that the rider would try and evade police if a stop was attempted.’

Supt Steve Barry, the force’s head of road policing, admitted there was enough evidence to charge Collins without the 15-minute chase, since he hit 100mph in a 60 zone within minutes of the tape rolling. But he said: “I think the court wanted to see the full extent of the seriousness of the riding behaviour and that was the reason we prolonged the evidence-gathering stage.”

Incredibly, Sussex Police claimed it was safe for an unmarked police bike to travel at 96mph in a 30mph zone with siren and flashing lights off.

Police says the deadly tactic was necessary to ‘gather evidence’ on speeding rider Michael James Collins, 22, from Beckenham, Kent.

The video, shot from the police bike, shows a 15 minute high-speed pursuit on rural and urban roads. At one stage the police rider reaches 107mph in a 40mph zone.
In his efforts to keep up with Collins, the officer also takes a series of massive risks, overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic and narrowly avoiding a head-on crash with another bike.


After all the risk Collins was only arrested later, at a bike dealership in Kent.
Magistrates handed him a two-year suspended jail sentence and riding ban and 240 hours' unpaid work.

Scotty wrote:Police says the deadly tactic was necessary to ‘gather evidence’ on speeding rider Michael James Collins, 22, from Beckenham, Kent.

I am afraid that is absolute rubbish, and a clear case of the Police scraping the barrel to justify their officers incompetance.

There was ample opportunity to arrest the rider, and if his behaviour was deemed to so "deadly" why didn't they stop him when they had the golden opportunity as he was pulled over at a garage filling up off the main road, rather than letting him get mount up and just carry on again

At that point the officer could have ended the whole thing as he already had enough evidence to insure a prosecution, but he did not, choosing instead to allow the whole lethal scenario to continue

Any officer will tell you that where possible, the gathering of evidence will never be done at the risk of public safety.

Here we have a case where clearly, (and the Police admit this by calling his behaviour "deadly"), it was.

Thats utter madness !! What a crazy rider !!

What more crazy is he only got 2 years suspended sentance, and 240 CS...while that bloke that did 122 got 6 months !!!

The rider is bloody mental. But the police copper is equally so.

I really dont see how the copper can get away riding like that to 'gather evidence' , especially as he had plenty so quickly