Illegal Slicks & One Bad Cop

Okay that's cool I understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying you may not have ment to give attitude but it may not have come across that way to the police. I agree they may have over stepped their boundaries with saying they can take your bike off you. They did have the right to stop you though as you did not have a bell or reflectors on you bike (these days who does) I know I don't.
 
wengji said:
They did have the right to stop you though as you did not have a bell or reflectors on you bike (these days who does) I know I don't.
Click to expand...

Can wearing reflective striped clothing, or reflective striped tyres be considered 'reflectors'? Or do they have to be on the bike?
And who's going to hear a bell on a four lane highway? 'Ding Ding, look out coal truck, I'm over here, ding ding'. Honestly.

It's a wonder they don't make dork discs a legal requirement.
 
double standards

I think the police like hasseling people in full bike gear out enjoying them self. I was riding down the road on my dh bike full gear on, with a full face just sitting on the top of my head. It was 40 deg day, got booked for no helmet fair enough it was not no correctley. While they were checking my bike was not stolen an older guy rode past on the footpath no helmet. I asked what about him. There answer was, no he is ok. What a joke, he probally was not driving because he lost his licience for dui.
 
wengji said:
Okay that's cool I understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying you may not have ment to give attitude but it may not have come across that way to the police. I agree they may have over stepped their boundaries with saying they can take your bike off you. They did have the right to stop you though as you did not have a bell or reflectors on you bike (these days who does) I know I don't.
Click to expand...

Wengji, sorry mate but you are full of crap. Were you actually present at the incident? Are you in a position to categorically state that the OP "gave attitude"? Are you privy to information that the rest of us are not, in regard to the incident, those involved, the relevant legislation or the behaviour of those present? I'd hazzard a guess that no, you are not. Your motives for participating in this debate are very suspect and you seem intent on restricting your contributions to casting aspersions on the OP; given the OP's incredibly tolerant and diplomatic responses to your lines of "questioning" it is clear that he has no hidden agenda and is merely expressing amazement at the behaviour of a government employee employed to enforce the law.

In regard to the presence or absence of bells or reflectors, it would appear that at no point has the officer in question raised those issues, therefore there is no point in you using it in his defence.

No one is claiming that all police are bad, they are simply acknowledging the fact that the behaviour of the officer involved was utterly ridiculous.
 
Mbt1611, mate to answer your questions no I dont have any further information from the incident that everyone else does, but I do have knowledge of legislation on the issue at hand more than likely more than you do.

If you read my last post I acknowledge that as you say "op" feels like he did not give attitude I also acknowledge his points and answer his questions regarding reflectors. I do understand his side but as stated earlier there are always two sides of the story. At the of the day who really care his had his say we have all had our say.
 
wengji said:
Mbt1611, mate to answer your questions no I dont have any further information from the incident that everyone else does, but I do have knowledge of legislation on the issue at hand more than likely more than you do.

If you read my last post I acknowledge that as you say "op" feels like he did not give attitude I also acknowledge his points and answer his questions regarding reflectors. I do understand his side but as stated earlier there are always two sides of the story. At the of the day who really care his had his say we have all had our say.
Click to expand...

I must admit that your inference that the OP was in some way culpable suggests some kind of hidden agenda on your part.
 
wengji said:
Mbt1611, mate to answer your questions no I dont have any further information from the incident that everyone else does, but I do have knowledge of legislation on the issue at hand more than likely more than you do.

If you read my last post I acknowledge that as you say "op" feels like he did not give attitude I also acknowledge his points and answer his questions regarding reflectors. I do understand his side but as stated earlier there are always two sides of the story. At the of the day who really care his had his say we have all had our say.
Click to expand...

We all care; if we didn't, this conversation wouldn't still be taking place. We SHOULD care about issues such as this, for reasons that are so obvious that they need not be mentioned.

Care to elaborate on your knowledge of the legislation at hand and in doing so justify yet another of your assumptions?
 
Dude, think about it it does not take a scientist to figure it when I say I know legislation. Put two and two together but make two cent coins.

The assumption I made was that the "op" may have give attitude even if he did not mean to. You can be passive aggressive you do understand that don't you? You can also give attitude with you body language.

How will this all benefit mtbing as a sport?
 
Wengji, you sound like one of those goody goody types who likes to suck up to people and be in their good books. Like the kid at school who sucked up to the teacher and dobbed on people when they did something wrong. The OP has clearly stated that he was simply minding his business and was pulled over for the tread on his tyres. Not if he had a working bell or reflector. Besides he was most likely riding during the day time anyway so whats the point. Have you ever had a policeman/women pull you over while riding during the day time in relation to your bell or reflectors ?

Oh yes its ok for police to pull people over for ridiculous reasons and act like tools, is it ? Oh but they are just doing their job. Well obviously in this case they are not doing it properly.

Of course we all have better things to do then bag cops, but this discussion is clearly about a cop who pulled over someone because of the, erm lets see, the tread on their tyres lol

And at no time was i under the assumption that we were bagging cops. We are merely discussing the bizarre behavior of one individual.
 
Last edited:
I'm just saying like it is there are two sides we have heard one. My opinion obviously you to melle and MTB. People disagree all the time that's life.
 
wengji said:
I'm just saying like it is there are two sides we have heard one. My opinion obviously you to melle and MTB. People disagree all the time that's life.
Click to expand...

You most definitely are NOT saying it like it is; the only person involved in this discussion who is in a position to do that is the OP, given the fact that he was there. I note also that you have avoided my enquiry into your extensive legislative knowledge....putting two and two together will not solve that riddle. Given the manner in which you phrase your posts you're clearly not a practitioner of law and if you're a police officer you seem extremely hesitant to admit to it, for reasons you may care to clarify....if you are a police officer your apparent lack of objectivity is cause for concern.
 
Last edited:
mtb1611 said:
You most definitely are NOT saying it like it is; the only person involved in this discussion who is in a position to do that is the OP, given the fact that he was there. I note also that you have avoided my enquiry into your extensive legislative knowledge....
Click to expand...

Holy crap the light is not bright at your end is it? Re read what I posted three posts ago and that answers your question. Dude I am saying like it is there are two sides to this story one being the "op" and the other the cop.
 
wengji said:
Holy crap the light is not bright at your end is it? Re read what I posted three posts ago and that answers your question. Dude I am saying like it is there are two sides to this story one being the "op" and the other the cop.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't answer anything. It alludes to something but clearly you don't have the guts to come out and just say it like it is - much like the cop, you're just talking crap. As for your brilliant assessment of light levels, there is only ONE side of the story IN THIS THREAD because there is only one poster who was actually there; perhaps your light is just so bright that it's blinding you.
 
that makes me laugh as most of the cops who ride mountain bikes around the city have slick tyres on..
 
Dude think about it I refer to a 2cent when you ask about my knowledge of legislation and that I have more of an understanding than you. What colour is a 2 cent piece? Copper. That is how I know legislation better.

The reference to light was stating how bright you must be not to understand the 2cent reference.

There is only one side in this thread as the person who wrote this thread was only half the people in the conversation at the time so we are only gettingvhalf the conversation. So this means we can not make a fully informed assessment
No offense to the thread creater
 
Originally Posted by wengji
My opinion obviously you two melle and MTB.
I'm not sure I quite understand this bit.

I wrote that in a rush and missed out the word offends
 
wengji said:
Dude think about it I refer to a 2cent when you ask about my knowledge of legislation and that I have more of an understanding than you. What colour is a 2 cent piece? Copper. That is how I know legislation better.

The reference to light was stating how bright you must be not to understand the 2cent reference.

There is only one side in this thread as the person who wrote this thread was only half the people in the conversation at the time so we are only gettingvhalf the conversation. So this means we can not make a fully informed assessment
No offense to the thread creater
Click to expand...


Anybody who spends enough time on this forum will be familiar with Harmonix1234s' posts and will know he is not prone to bullshit. This is why the majority of us may appear critical of the officer in question. The theme is not about bashing the Police, on the contrary, the majority do a bang up job. There are 'bad apples' in every profession and this is an example of one of them.
 
wengji said:
Dude think about it I refer to a 2cent when you ask about my knowledge of legislation and that I have more of an understanding than you. What colour is a 2 cent piece? Copper. That is how I know legislation better.

The reference to light was stating how bright you must be not to understand the 2cent reference.

There is only one side in this thread as the person who wrote this thread was only half the people in the conversation at the time so we are only gettingvhalf the conversation. So this means we can not make a fully informed assessment
No offense to the thread creater
Click to expand...

I appreciate you sharing your superior knowledge of rhyming slang, I'll have to remember that one. Perhaps if you employed a concept commonly referred to as "grammar" your riddles would be more easily interpreted by those of us less endowed in terms of literary skills ;)

Thank you also for clarifying your occupation, however that in effect makes your perspective more concerning. You have unreservedly gone to the defence of the officer in question, despite the fact that you have been provided with a detailed first-hand account of his actions - the OP has gone to great lengths to address issues you have raised and yet at no time have you expressed any concern for his conduct. Do you use this same approach when dealing with victims of crime, ie: do you instantly jump to the offence of the alleged offender and question the victim in a manner that suggests he or she is the one at fault, or are you merely adopting this stance because you too are a police officer? What I am getting at is that you seem extremely reluctant to acknowledge any wrong-doing on the part of the officer involved yet have shown no such reluctance when grilling the OP in a manner that suggests he is being dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top