Police pick on cyclist
 

Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his
bike, though they may have been dim. Thus he was not committing an
offence and the police had no grounds to ask him for his name and
address. Thus the arrest was illegal, just like the fixed penalty
notice.
If "picked on" means "enforced the law"... yes.

He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested -
under road traffic legislation.

Which clause of what road traffic legislation?

"Clause"?

Acts don't have clauses; they have sections.

Police pick on cyclist
 

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:49:03 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

They challenged my lack of a front light, and I showed them that it
worked. They challenged that I went through the red lights, I claimed
they were green. The challenged that I did not stop, I claimed I did
not know they wanted me to stop as I couldn't see behind me. There
was a bit of other stuff that I can't recall. They asked for my name
and address, I gave them my name and said (in a silly bugger way), "My
address is here".

Is lying as blatantly as that something you are proud of?

Is anyone ever proud of playing silly buggers?

No - but we mostly keep schtum about it and try to forget, I suggest.

It happened, I did it, I was young, I would not be such an ass now.
22(?) years on I will not hide from how I behaved, but I will not
harbour embarrassment for that length of time either; the embarrassing
thought "Oh my God, did I really do that?" was reserved for the
following morning.

Fair enough. I expect lots of us have done that.

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:22:58 -0000, "Mortimer" wrote:

"PeterG" wrote in message
...

If a car driver had had a dim light showing you would expect him to
be pulled over, why should it be any different for a cyclist.
Like all road users he should check his light before he made his
journey.

True. However it is possible for a battery to go flat or a bulb to fail
during the journey. How often is one supposed to stop and re-check a light
*during* a journey to make sure that it is *still* correctly lit?

Quite right - it's a pity he could not have said - "Sorry officer - it
was OK when I set out - I'll put in the replacement battery which I
carry with me"

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:

He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if
requested - under road traffic legislation.

Which clause of what road traffic legislation?

"Clause"?
Acts don't have clauses; they have sections.

I take that as an admission that actually no road traffic legislation
requires it. That, in fact, your assertion was wrong.

Acts have clauses, whether they are titled "clause" or not. Clause is
a perfectly good general-purpose noun. My Oxford dictionary has
clause as being "a particular and separate article, stipulation, or
proviso, in any formal or legal document." I think you'd be on safer
ground making spelling flames, if that's the best you can do on
meaning.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:23:26 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Is anyone ever proud of playing silly buggers?

No - but we mostly keep schtum about it and try to forget, I suggest.

Which is, perhaps, why so many people feel the youth of today are
worse than the youth of their day.

Police pick on cyclist
 

On 2 Dec, 07:11, judith smith wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:22:58 -0000, "Mortimer" wrote:
"PeterG" wrote in message
...

If a car driver had had a dim light showing you would expect him to
be pulled over, why should it be any different for a cyclist.
Like all road users he should check his light before he made his
journey.

True. However it is possible for a battery to go flat or a bulb to fail
during the journey. How often is one supposed to stop and re-check a light
*during* a journey to make sure that it is *still* correctly lit?

Quite right - it's a pity he could not have said - "Sorry officer - it
was OK when I set out - I'll put in the replacement battery which I
carry with me"

The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more
at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to
anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights.

Anyway, he was arrested for refusing to give his name and address
which is quite common.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Police pick on cyclist
 

"Doug" wrote in message
...
....
Anyway, he was arrested for refusing to giv to give e his name and address
which is quite common.

Which are you saying is quite common? Failing to give a name and address or
being arrested for failing to do so when legally required?

Colin Bignell

Police pick on cyclist
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Crispin wrote:

Which is, perhaps, why so many people feel the youth of today are
worse than the youth of their day.

They always were. And policemen were older back then as well.

- --
Guy

May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
================================================== =====================
** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code **
================================================== =====================
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJNPqdHBDrsD+jvN4RAofUAJ9CUb9pOUXFaIiGJHO53o zCzdMF0wCeNkpf
vk37uRDUWEj1Ovobr0rIQAA=
=jPAQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Police pick on cyclist
 

Ian Smith wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:

He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if
requested - under road traffic legislation.

Which clause of what road traffic legislation?

"Clause"?
Acts don't have clauses; they have sections.

I take that as an admission that actually no road traffic legislation
requires it. That, in fact, your assertion was wrong.

Actually, you seem to have forgotten what you read.

Here it is again:

STARTQUOTE:
He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested -
under road traffic legislation.

Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here
legal system in Scotland, he didn't give his name and address when lawfully
required to, the police would have been within their rights to arrest him
(which oddly enough, seems to have been their view too). If it were
otherwise, how could cycling law ever be enforced?
ENDQUOTE

See what you did there?

You snipped out the second bit and treated the first bit as though the second
bit hadn't been written, didn't you?

[Yes, I have noticed my own grammatical error in the quoted part above.]

Acts have clauses, whether they are titled "clause" or not.

Bills are divided into clauses. Acts, sections.

Clause is
a perfectly good general-purpose noun. My Oxford dictionary has
clause as being "a particular and separate article, stipulation, or
proviso, in any formal or legal document."

Had you merely claimed that complex sentences (including those found in Acts
of Parliament) contain clauses, I could have agreed with you.

But this is not what you were claiming. You thought that Acts of Parliament
are divided into clauses (I could make a reasonably confident bet as to *why*
you thought that too), and that is why you asked the question in that way.

I think you'd be on safer
ground making spelling flames, if that's the best you can do on
meaning.

It's nothing to do with spelling. You spelled "clause" and "clauses" correctly.

The whole point about your question is that you wished to be told which
identifiable part of an Act of Parliament makes a particular provision. Acts
are not divided into clauses; they are divided into sections.

Clauses (the grammatical concept) are very obviously not readily identifiable
by being indexed; it is ludicrous to suggest that you were asking for a
particular grammaical clause to be identified. You were asking for a section
and you called it a clause.

Police pick on cyclist
 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Crispin wrote:

Which is, perhaps, why so many people feel the youth of today are
worse than the youth of their day.

They always were. And policemen were older back then as well.

And Wagon Wheels were bigger.