[Snowball]

Santa, the "knew he knew" argument isn't really the point - cops are supposed to be precise. As to "knowing how to react", would it be wise for the cop to risk digging a deeper hole for himself?
I give the police due respect, but I have no reason to fear them and would (actually have) give them short shrift in the event of unnecessary pomposity.
In the favour of the police I have to say that, of the very few times I have had any dealings with them, they have been courteous and friendly and an odd, stroppy one a very rare thing.
The only one I can recall is when I rewired my old Standard 9 so as to leave only the offside front and rear obligatory lights on when parked.
The Leicestershire chief constable had announced in the press that, providing done sensibly, he would allow parking lights to be used in the county.
Thinking my idea better than a single central lamp clipped onto the side window, I parked outside my bro'-in-laws house. Along came village plod. At the door he asked very officially, "whose was the car EKC346?" I went to the door and explained that these were my parking lights - all lights being on when moving, and offered to demonstrate. Instead he went straight into, "I don't allow parking lights in my village". Well, what do you do?
I told him that he would do as his Chief Constable ordered. That if he wanted to make an issue of it, he would be facing an AA solicitor in court, not me.
And did he want to make a bigger fool of himself than he was already doing? As he stood open-mouthed I just closed the door on him.
B-I-L folded up laughing - said the plod was an arrogant pillock, and needed his nose rubbed in the dirt.
Respect deserves respect - arrogance a swift shove off the high horse!

[Santa]

This discussion is going nowhere. I suspect that the reason you have mostly had "courteous and friendly" relations with them is because you are courteous and friendly.

Yes they are trained and yes I do have a great deal of respect for them. But they are not robots, so when faced with a stroppy attitude, they are likely to, not be stroppy, but to become more enthusiastic about finding fault if it exists and less tolerant about minor infringements.

This principle applies to all dealings with anyone in authority. As a truck driver, I once talked to the replacement who had covered my work for a week. "How do you put up with it," he asked and went on to tell me what a load of lazy obstructive jobsworths he had met in the companies at which I regularly called. When I went round and chatted to all those nice helpful people, they asked me if I could make sure that the rude ignorant so and so who had replaced me was not sent again.

[Dennis W]

Some of the methods which they use to stop vehicles after dark are positively dangerous.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Dennis W

Some of the methods which they use to stop vehicles after dark are positively dangerous.

That made me laugh. When I had my first car I had to garage it some way from home, then ride back home on my bike. One dark night, fairly late, I was riding home when a cop jumped out in front of me and shone a torch in my face. I pulled hard on my brakes - so hard that one of the cables snapped. Cop then spots the waving cable and accuses me of my brakes not being in good condition.
I pointed out that it was OK until he jumped out in front of me, told him if I hadn't braked so hard he would have got me and my bike piled into him, and how would he have liked that? Another cop came out of the shadows and asked me if I was being cheeky. I said no, but I am just on the way home after garaging my car and, being a driver (I was only about 19), I do know that it is stupid to jump out of the dark like your pal just did.
He then started to ask me about where I kept the car and its registration number. I then told him that if it was going that far, then he must write everything down in his little book and I would sign it. Then next day I would go to the police station and make a complaint.
he then said I should get my bike brakes fixed, then they both walked away on their beat. Basically, I was a victim of their boredom.
You don't forget things like that, and it makes you stand your ground if and when a cop gets cocky. Like us, they are still only people.

[Dennis W]

Do you remember when there was a speed limit of 50 mph because of a fuel crisis? 1974, I think it was.

I was going along the A59 at 50 mph, there was a car behind me right on my tail and flashing the headlights. It transpired that he was a cop on his way to work at 2.00pm. He must have been late for work. By chance, later that day, and several miles away. I was driving into Liverpool, and I went past a stationary police car. Several minutes later. the police car caught up with me and stopped me. He told me that He had been driving the car behind me. And he gave me a written NIP. Nothing further happened.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Santa

Giving smart answers in that situation was hardly the ideal. That cop might well have spent the next half hour checking every detail in search of some fault he could prosecute your son for.

Be polite, answer truthfully and never volunteer information is tha best policy.

Whether Snowball's son was being deliberately smart or not seems to me to be obvious. If asked by a police officer if you have been drinking, do you really expect a normal person not to believe this is in relation to alcohol? Are you seriously expecting the police officer wants to know if you have been drinking tea or coffee? Why would he want to know that? Come on Snowball, this is ridiculous.
Your post number 34, the last line, seems to sum up why your son reacted as he did. Like father like son?

It is also immaterial if you think the bike was all legal. The police officer does not KNOW if it is until he checks it. Do you really want to sit at the roadside for another 20 minutes while various checks are made? This is all about one-upmanship and ultimately your son was the loser being held up longer than was necessary. You seem to forget the officer was on duty; probably for a few more hours; he is getting well paid to be on the street and doing a job so making him wait or inconveniencing him is a non-starter.

Santa's advice seems to be the most sensible on here.

[Dennis W]

Sometimes, Many times actually, Police Officers DO ask Funny questions when they stop motorists.

For Example "do you know why I have stopped you?"

"Is this your car sir?"

My dad always used to say to me "If you ask a silly question, then you will get a silly answer"

The Police alienate law abiding citizens by being rude to people unnecessarily.

[smudger]

I suppose it's the same with any large organisation, you get good and bad ones?It's the bad ones that spoil the reputation for of the good ones.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Dennis W

Sometimes, Many times actually, Police Officers DO ask Funny questions when they stop motorists.

For Example "do you know why I have stopped you?"

"Is this your car sir?"

My dad always used to say to me "If you ask a silly question, then you will get a silly answer"

The Police alienate law abiding citizens by being rude to people unnecessarily.

1. A perfectly valid question as many drivers will know they have no driving licence, or insurance or a headlight out etc etc and the 'yes' answer will help prove the offence.

2. Absolutely essential for a police officer to ask this. If the driver says 'yes' then he will be asked a series of questions. If he says 'no' then a different series of questions especially in relation to insurance and permission to be driving.

3. But of course, its OK for the public to be rude to the police?

Once again, you have excelled in showing how out of touch you are on here.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by smudger

I suppose it's the same with any large organisation, you get good and bad ones?It's the bad ones that spoil the reputation for of the good ones.

Couldn't agree more.

[Dennis W]

Some drivers for very valid reasons will not know why the police have stopped them, It is therefore perfectly valid to tell the police officer No, I do not know why you have stopped me.

Sometimes police officers will not be clear what they are doing standing in the middle of the road at 11.00 pm

Many drivers get stopped for going too SLOW

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Dennis W

Some drivers for very valid reasons will not know why the police have stopped them, It is therefore perfectly valid to tell the police officer No, I do not know why you have stopped me.

Sometimes police officers will not be clear what they are doing standing in the middle of the road at 11.00 pm

Many drivers get stopped for going too SLOW

Are you bored? Is that why you keep posting nonsensical replies that have no bearing on the rest of the thread? ZZZzzzzzzzz

[Dennis W]

Originally Posted by Santa

Cops tend to be prejudiced against young men on motorbike anyway. When he asked, "Have you been drinking," your son knew, and the cop knew he knew, exactly what he meant. Because of his "Yes" the cop then had to wait and two other cops had to waste their time driving over to breathalyse him.

If you were a cop in that situation, how would you react? I know how I would.

If they were both young, the cop as well as the young motor cyclist, then I would accept that biker could take the question very literally.

IF I was a cop in that situation, I would have followed up by several additional questions to try to clarify HOW Much he had been drinking, and maybe ask whether it was cider, beer, or whisky, or what else it may have been. Considering that the event may have happened thirty years ago, we have to take the story with a big pinch of salt anyway, I guess?

[rgibbs]

Its kind of annoying especially if you don't drink! I had to do it over Christmas.. And I was in a rush too, wasn't happy at all.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by rgibbs

Its kind of annoying especially if you don't drink! I had to do it over Christmas.. And I was in a rush too, wasn't happy at all.

Really? I was stopped for no reason after coming out of a side road on to a major road at 11pm in the next town. Asking why I had been stopped the 'special constable' admitted it was the car I was driving and no other reason. He told me to sit in the rear of the patrol car and then he carried out the test with threats of arrest if I refused. He also got the procedure and wording all wrong. He never asked if I had had a drink (alcohol or tea) and as I had just drunk coca cola all night I passed the test.
Submitting to the test was no big deal at all so I wasn't annoyed by it. Just wish there were more tests carried out every night to catch the idiots and there are many out there.

[Snowball]

It can be a pain if you are in a rush (within the speed limit, of course), but it is for the good of the rest of us. I just think that the police should show professionalism in such cases. The "car that was being driven" is no excuse for targeting a driver, but it was qualified by mentioning "special constable" - say no more!
Perhaps the odd one here and there is getting carried away by the bullish cops shown on Yankee TV programmes.

[Dennis W]

Several years ago, I was driving through our town at about 11.00 pm on a dark night, giving my son a lift home from his job at Tesco.

Ahead of me, in the middle of the road was a figure in a High Visibility jacket, he appeared to be looking for something on the floor with the aid of a weak torch. It was not clear what he was doing. I slowed down, and stopped, it was a Police Officer on foot, no vehicle in sight.

He asked me to blow into a breathalyser.

But the point is, the manner in which he performed the STOP was dangerous, and not in conformance to his standard operating instructions.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Dennis W

But the point is, the manner in which he performed the STOP was dangerous, and not in conformance to his standard operating instructions.

Curious to know what "his standard operating instructions" were?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Dennis W

Several years ago, I was driving through our town at about 11.00 pm on a dark night, giving my son a lift home from his job at Tesco.

Ahead of me, in the middle of the road was a figure in a High Visibility jacket, he appeared to be looking for something on the floor with the aid of a weak torch. It was not clear what he was doing. I slowed down, and stopped, it was a Police Officer on foot, no vehicle in sight.

He asked me to blow into a breathalyser.

But the point is, the manner in which he performed the STOP was dangerous, and not in conformance to his standard operating instructions.

I wasn't aware that beat constables carried a breathaliser instrument. I remember reading in the press a few years back that a driver
was stopped by a beat constable on a country road had to call for a car to bring the breathaliser kit. If I remember right, this driver suggested that they might as well walk up to the main road to meet the police car; which they did.
As it turned out, the ramifications of making this walk resulted in the breath test not being legitimate. Don't know if the rules have changed since that time, or specific instructions given to officers not to allow a driver to walk any distance from his/her vehicle.

[Loony]

Originally Posted by Snowball

I remember reading in the press a few years back that a driver
was stopped by a beat constable on a country road had to call for a car to bring the breathaliser kit. If I remember right, this driver suggested that they might as well walk up to the main road to meet the police car; which they did.
As it turned out, the ramifications of making this walk resulted in the breath test not being legitimate. Don't know if the rules have changed since that time, or specific instructions given to officers not to allow a driver to walk any distance from his/her vehicle.

That does not make any sense to be honest.

The roadside breath test is not evidential.
It is used as a roadside tool to see who is possibly over the limit.

If it reads over you are then taken to the station and placed on an evidential machine and it is the lower reading of the two readings on that machine they use.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Loony

That does not make any sense to be honest.

The roadside breath test is not evidential.
It is used as a roadside tool to see who is possibly over the limit.

If it reads over you are then taken to the station and placed on an evidential machine and it is the lower reading of the two readings on that machine they use.

Loony, it didn't make sense to me, either. I tried to think of a logical reason for this when I read it, but could not. But then, what has logic got to do with it when our legislators get their hands on pen and paper? LOL.

[Hometune]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Loony, it didn't make sense to me, either. I tried to think of a logical reason for this when I read it, but could not. But then, what has logic got to do with it when our legislators get their hands on pen and paper? LOL.

The test has to be carried out at the point of stopping the car (except after an accident where it can be anywhere). I think from memory the phrase in the act says 'there or nearby' and walking up the road would no longer mean 'nearby' which I assume the defence made use of.
Might be worth checking up on as my memory isn't so good these days.