Police pick on cyclist
 

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:06:01 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.


I wonder why he accepted the fixed penalty charge?

Perhaps because he realised he had committed an offence.

Do you really think he was not committing an offence - because the
lights were only dim? Or is it perhaps you who is?

I suggest that you or Anchor Lee get in touch asap to offer him the
benefit of your fine legal minds.

--
Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under
the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by
the police as such. Phil W(anker) Lee - well known Psycholist

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Dec 1, 1:06*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-thre....

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.

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights, and
arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name.

"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt.
That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig-
headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a
hard time.

Calum

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen writes:

If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his
bike, though they may have been dim.

There is presumably some threshold of dimness below which a light
becomes illegal. Or perhaps there isn't - lighting regulations for
bikes have historically been a bit daft (c.f. illegal LEDs until a few
years ago) and it would not surprise me too much to learn that it's
technically ok to cycle around with dead light batteries.

If I shone my front light into the face of a police officer who'd
stopped me then I'd probably get done for assaulting a police officer
....


-dan

Police pick on cyclist
 

calum writes:

That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig-
headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a
hard time.

Likewise all sociologists, all 30 year olds or all Edinburgh
residents, any of which would be about as valid a generalisation.
"Some people" are, unfortunately, pig-**** stupid and there's little
that can be done about it short of a shovel and a shallow grave.


-dan

Police pick on cyclist
 

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.


Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light" in the
officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Dec 1, 2:05*pm, Daniel Barlow wrote:
calum writes:
That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig-
headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a
hard time.

Likewise all sociologists, all 30 year olds or all Edinburgh
residents, any of which would be about as valid a generalisation.
"Some people" are, unfortunately, pig-**** stupid and there's little
that can be done about it short of a shovel and a shallow grave.

-dan

I'm not in complete agreement. None of the other categories you cite
is a regular target for venom from his fellow man (except perhaps for
residents of Edinburgh).

Calum

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:56 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights,

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights. It may be that the police
simply failed to spot the lights amongst the general array of lights
on the road, it may be that the police were unable to see them as
the police were not in the right position (for example looking from
the side), it may be that their view was obstructed by something, it
may be that the police are lying, it may be that the report is
wrong. All sorts of possibilities.

and arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name.

The police have only limited grounds to request such information. If
the lights were working then they had no grounds to request the
information, unless one imagines that the lights suddenly started
working. Although a light which has been switched off for a while
may be brighter when switched back on I doubt if an exhausted light
would make a comeback.

"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

Read on to the next bit after the three dots, "But Mr Cimini
challenged this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights
working".

He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour. No
doubt this continued and the victim gave in. Many victims do.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:12:37 -0000 someone who may be "pk"
wrote this:-

Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light" in the
officer's face" so they nicked him.

You mean, the police picked on someone they thought would be an easy
target [1] and when he wasn't supplicant enough they got annoyed at
not being shown "respect". No-doubt they thought this would be an
easy one for their box ticking targets.


[1] the police in Edinburgh are noticeable for not turning up with
the same zeal to attend assaults, neds drinking Buckie and being a
nuisance, the activities of the bankers in Edinburgh and a whole
host of other things.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

pk wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.




Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light"
in the officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk

And like many a person who thinks themself law-abiding, the middle class
offender is shocked to be treated like a criminal or even "a vagrant".

the paragraph
"You couldn't imagine a car driver getting the same treatment for not
having their lights working, you would have thought the police would
have better things to do with their time".

must surely be designed to be crossposted to another group. And that
picture does manage to make him look like the troll toy my sister had in
the early seventies...

RT

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.

Just because a cyclist has a set of working lights on his bike, does not
mean that the lights are legal as primary lights. A cyclist could be lit
up like a christmas tree, and yet still get prosecuted for having no
lights if none of the lights are primary lights.

"Mr Cimini shone his front light in one officer's face to prove it was
working and it was at this point that it emerged the light had begun to
fade because it was low on battery power."

If the light was dim when he turned it back on to shine it in the cops
face, then it was probably even dimmer just before he turned it off.

I do think that as Mr Cimini was making had some lights on his bike, he
should have just been given a ticking off, but then shinning it in the
cops face would not help his cause.

Martin.

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:48:16 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe
wrote this:-

And like many a person who thinks themself law-abiding, the middle class
offender is shocked to be treated like a criminal or even "a vagrant".

In this case it is not in the least clear whether the person was an
offender or not.

If the person was not an offender then the subsequent police actions
were illegal and the only offenders were the police officers
themselves.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

Given the small amount of information we have it's possible to build up
a picture of events where the rider is an arse just as easily as one can
make a picture where the policeman is an arse.
I was picked up like this about thirty years ago, and got provoked into
being an arse myself. At least I did get a (long) anecdote out of it,
but I won't repeat it here.
Roger Thorpe

Police pick on cyclist
 

"pk" wrote in message
...
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.


Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light" in
the officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk



That sounds like what may have happened. If you show Police disrespect they
will go to town on you.

Being a sociology lecturer he's the sort of person who might be a bit
bolshie. Catch a pig on the wrong day, and this is what happens. Count
himself lucky he didn't get tasered, clubbed or shot.

Also some people get very nervous near threatening authority types in peaked
caps, as I do, even though they've done nothing wrong. This can cause
normally decent rational people to misbehave in odd and irrational ways.



In my area cyclists seem to cycle along with no lights, some in Ninja mode,
with impunity. I would sort of appreciate it if the Police beat up a few
cycle nutters here.

Wouldn't it be cheaper for everyone if the Police just handed out £10 sets
of lights and be done with the problem.

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:56 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights,

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights. It may be that the police
simply failed to spot the lights amongst the general array of lights
on the road, it may be that the police were unable to see them as
the police were not in the right position (for example looking from
the side),

If the police failed to spot his lights amongst the general array of
lights, then Mr Cimini needs to think if he needs more/better lights on
his bike. Some of the LED lights I see are very dim against a background
of other lights, which is why I am a big flashing lights.



"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

Read on to the next bit after the three dots, "But Mr Cimini
challenged this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights
working".

That is the odd thing, if he did have working lights, then the police
should have just let him get on his way.

Police pick on cyclist
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.

Just because a cyclist has a set of working lights on his bike, does not
mean that the lights are legal as primary lights. A cyclist could be lit
up like a christmas tree, and yet still get prosecuted for having no
lights if none of the lights are primary lights.

"Mr Cimini shone his front light in one officer's face to prove it was
working and it was at this point that it emerged the light had begun to
fade because it was low on battery power."

If the light was dim when he turned it back on to shine it in the cops
face, then it was probably even dimmer just before he turned it off.

I do think that as Mr Cimini was making had some lights on his bike, he
should have just been given a ticking off, but then shinning it in the
cops face would not help his cause.

Martin.




Could he have just said "Yes sir... I'll get it fixed straight away sir...
three bags full sir."

Most coppers (well from experience 20 to 30 years ago) would tend not to
pursue someone who is respectful and compliant back.

Police pick on cyclist
 

Light of Aria wrote:

"pk" wrote in message
...
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.



Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light"
in the officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk



That sounds like what may have happened. If you show Police disrespect
they will go to town on you.

Being a sociology lecturer he's the sort of person who might be a bit
bolshie. Catch a pig on the wrong day, and this is what happens. Count
himself lucky he didn't get tasered, clubbed or shot.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5224058.ece

Comrade Smith was talking about issuing the police with 10,000 tasers,
but the Met say they don't want to be routinely armed with them.


Also some people get very nervous near threatening authority types in
peaked caps, as I do, even though they've done nothing wrong. This can
cause normally decent rational people to misbehave in odd and irrational
ways.



In my area cyclists seem to cycle along with no lights, some in Ninja
mode, with impunity. I would sort of appreciate it if the Police beat up
a few cycle nutters here.

The majority round here seem to be lit up and night, although I do agree
that those without any sort of light should be fined.

Wouldn't it be cheaper for everyone if the Police just handed out £10
sets of lights and be done with the problem.

No, because then someone is being rewarded for breaking the law.
What happens is some places is that a cyclist is given a FPN for not
having lights, if the cyclist buys and fits lights within e.g. two
weeks, then the FPN is withdrawn.
I very much like that attitude.

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:06:01 +0000
David Hansen wrote:

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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

Surely that's for the court to decide once he's refused to accept a FPN?

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 he'd given his name and address rather than acting like a silly
bugger he'd probably have got away with an informal caution.

Police pick on cyclist
 

Wouldn't it be cheaper for everyone if the Police just handed out £10
sets of lights and be done with the problem.

No, because then someone is being rewarded for breaking the law.
What happens is some places is that a cyclist is given a FPN for not
having lights, if the cyclist buys and fits lights within e.g. two
weeks, then the FPN is withdrawn.
I very much like that attitude.


I agree. Fining people isn't the point. Modifying the behaviour is the
objective.

Police pick on cyclist
 

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20081201150940.2fa57849@bluemoon...
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:06:01 +0000
David Hansen wrote:

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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

Surely that's for the court to decide once he's refused to accept a FPN?

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 he'd given his name and address rather than acting like a silly
bugger he'd probably have got away with an informal caution.




"words of advice" is apparently the euphemism they use now.

As someone who frequently confronts vandals, drunks, and yobs, I am appalled
at the number of times I've seen people blatantly "taking the ****" get away
with a mere ticking off.

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Dec 1, 2:42*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights,

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights.

The report reports the claims of both sides.

It may be that the police
simply failed to spot the lights amongst the general array of lights
on the road, it may be that the police were unable to see them as
the police were not in the right position (for example looking from
the side), it may be that their view was obstructed by something, it
may be that the police are lying, it may be that the report is
wrong. All sorts of possibilities.

But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he
failed to display lights at night.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour.

Where in the report did you read that?

No doubt this continued and the victim gave in.

I'm sure Mr "still shocked and angry" still has plenty of time to
challenge the FPN and have his day in court if he feels he has
suffered an injustice.

Calum

Police pick on cyclist
 

In ,
Daniel Barlow tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

If I shone my front light into the face of a police officer who'd
stopped me then I'd probably get done for assaulting a police officer

Try it with a Lupine Betty 14 and you'd probably be done for attempted
murder...

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/Cycle/7/Lu...ht/5360038399/

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
I am the Disgruntled Employee; I am the New Face of Labour
Relations.

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights.

The report reports the claims of both sides.

I didn't claim otherwise.

But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he
failed to display lights at night.

You think? Personally I think that it is the threatening words and
behaviour.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour.

Where in the report did you read that?

The police undoubtedly used threatening words in their attempts to
make their victim provide information he did not have to provide.
The threatening words undoubtedly involved threats of arrest at the
roadside. The threatening behaviour included assaulting the victim
by placing him in handcuffs, taking him to a police station and
putting him in a cell. There were undoubtedly threatening words
during and after this too.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:09:40 +0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
wrote this:-

If he'd given his name and address rather than acting like a silly
bugger

So, refusing to provide information which the police have no right
to ask for is "acting like a silly bugger"? I'm sure they would have
liked you in East Germany.

Rights are not gained and preserved by allowing petty officials to
do what they want.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:52:33 +0000 someone who may be Martin
wrote this:-

I do think that as Mr Cimini was making had some lights on his bike, he
should have just been given a ticking off, but then shinning it in the
cops face would not help his cause.

A police officer once shone a torch in my eyes, refused to point it
at the ground when I pointed out that it is impolite to shine lights
in people's faces and became lippy when I held my hand infront of my
face to stop myself being blinded by the torch.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Dec 1, 4:39*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum

But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he
failed to display lights at night.

You think? Personally I think that it is the threatening words and
behaviour.

We have differing opinions based on limited information, much of which
is assumption.
The one thing that doesn't seem to be disputed is that the cyclist
accepted a FPN.

Now that he's free from the police cell and any intimidation, real or
imaginary, one would hope he'd take a stance against this perceived
injustice and appeal the FPN. He wasn't too scared by the prospect of
arrest for failing to provide his identity so I'm sure some paperwork
isn't beyond him.


The police had already used threatening words and behaviour.

Where in the report did you read that?

The police undoubtedly used threatening words in their attempts to
make their victim provide information he did not have to provide.
The threatening words undoubtedly involved threats of arrest at the
roadside. The threatening behaviour included assaulting the victim
by placing him in handcuffs, taking him to a police station and
putting him in a cell. There were undoubtedly threatening words
during and after this too.

Wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to reply: "I didn't."?


Calum

Police pick on cyclist
 

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

David Hansen wrote:

So, refusing to provide information which the police have no right
to ask for is "acting like a silly bugger"? I'm sure they would have
liked you in East Germany.

Have a care, David: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

- --
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

iD8DBQFJNBiqHBDrsD+jvN4RApiAAJwOLrQaOmW7VY+5Od5zpA 2D3GVergCeLeGK
/Av5LxzvdpbP3L44GblX0k8=
=Ti2j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:42:21 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:09:40 +0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
wrote this:-

If he'd given his name and address rather than acting like a silly
bugger



Why did he not provide his name and address when asked for it - they
believed that he had committed an offence.

It sounds like it was his own fault that he got arrested.

Police pick on cyclist
 

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

The police undoubtedly used threatening words in their attempts to
make their victim provide information he did not have to provide.
The threatening words undoubtedly involved threats of arrest at the
roadside. The threatening behaviour included assaulting the victim
by placing him in handcuffs, taking him to a police station and
putting him in a cell. There were undoubtedly threatening words
during and after this too.


I really would be fascinated to know the origins of your anti-police mindset
to which you give vent on many occasions - care to enlighten us?

pk

Police pick on cyclist
 

On 1 Dec, 14:12, "pk" wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

...

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-thre....

Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light" in the
officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk

yep, failed the attitude test

Police pick on cyclist
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:09:40 +0000, Rob Morley
wrote:

If he'd given his name and address rather than acting like a silly
bugger he'd probably have got away with an informal caution.

Acting like a silly bugger can be a help.

In my much younger days I had an interesting encounter with the police
and played a silly bugger...

My front light was faulty - it needed a bang on its side to get it
working. At about 2am I was at a set of red lights very close to my
home with a police car behind me. There was no other traffic and I
went straight over. The police car followed, it flashed and put on
its blue lights, I ignored it and turned into my service road and to
my front door. The police parked up and confronted me.

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".

Some nine months later I received a threat of bailiffs if I didn't pay
the fine (I can't recall the amount) for shooting lights, no lights at
night and failing to comply with a request to stop. I didn't even
know I'd been taken to court.

Because I had played silly buggers the police copied down my neigbours
address, not mine, and I never received the summons (at that time a
pair of prostitutes were living in the flat above mine and they had
never passed on the court summons). Because I never had the chance to
defend myself the conviction and fine were quashed.

Perhaps I'm a lucky bugger, not just a silly bugger. ;-)



**Troll bait** - I will welcome some relevant and pertinent
statistical blurb from judith demonstrating that he has a clear
understanding of statistics. I, and others, will read his post with
careful scrutiny, and be so awed that we shall not respond.

Police pick on cyclist
 

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:56 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-
"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

Read on to the next bit after the three dots, "But Mr Cimini
challenged this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights
working".


It is possible that the rear light could have failed en-route without him
noticing. This has happened to me a couple of times.

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.

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?

But no doubt you will be representing him at his appeal.

Police pick on cyclist
 

Daniel Barlow wrote:

David Hansen writes:

If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his
bike, though they may have been dim.

There is presumably some threshold of dimness below which a light
becomes illegal.

Switched off - which is certainly a possibility and would be just as
concordant with the reported facts - would certainly count as that.

Or perhaps there isn't - lighting regulations for
bikes have historically been a bit daft (c.f. illegal LEDs until a few
years ago) and it would not surprise me too much to learn that it's
technically ok to cycle around with dead light batteries.

It is.

But not at night. :-)

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:56 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights,

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights. It may be that the police
simply failed to spot the lights amongst the general array of lights
on the road, it may be that the police were unable to see them as
the police were not in the right position (for example looking from
the side), it may be that their view was obstructed by something, it
may be that the police are lying, it may be that the report is
wrong. All sorts of possibilities

....including the possibility that the police were right and that he was
showing no lights, something he accepted by wisely opting for a FPN instead
of a court appearance.

and arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name.

The police have only limited grounds to request such information. If
the lights were working then they had no grounds to request the
information, unless one imagines that the lights suddenly started
working. Although a light which has been switched off for a while
may be brighter when switched back on I doubt if an exhausted light
would make a comeback.

"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

Read on to the next bit after the three dots, "But Mr Cimini
challenged this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights
working".

Is that the same as "switched on", then?

The lights on my car are all working (I can see it from here). But they're
not switched on.

He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour. No
doubt this continued and the victim gave in. Many victims do.

You ought to get down to London and speak up for Damian Green.

Or perhaps not.

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:48:16 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe
wrote this:-

And like many a person who thinks themself law-abiding, the middle class
offender is shocked to be treated like a criminal or even "a vagrant".

In this case it is not in the least clear whether the person was an
offender or not.

Yes it is.

He accepted that by taking the FP.

If the person was not an offender then the subsequent police actions
were illegal and the only offenders were the police officers
themselves.

All meaningless - the offender admitted the offence.

Police pick on cyclist
 

Light of Aria wrote:

"pk" wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

Rough translation:
"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light"
in the officer's face" so they nicked him.
pk

That sounds like what may have happened. If you show Police disrespect
they will go to town on you.

Being a sociology lecturer he's the sort of person who might be a bit
bolshie.

Not necessarily.

I used to know several sociology lecturers - one or two of them (OK, maybe
three) were as you describe, buut at least as many were ordinary,
semi-detached, suburban, pipe-and-slippers, Audi or Volvo-driving men.

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights.
The report reports the claims of both sides.

I didn't claim otherwise.

But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he
failed to display lights at night.

You think? Personally I think that it is the threatening words and
behaviour.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour.
Where in the report did you read that?

The police undoubtedly used threatening words in their attempts to
make their victim provide information he did not have to provide.
The threatening words undoubtedly involved threats of arrest at the
roadside. The threatening behaviour included assaulting the victim
by placing him in handcuffs, taking him to a police station and
putting him in a cell. There were undoubtedly threatening words
during and after this too.

I've often wondered what you might do for a living.

I can see clearly now that you are an Edinburgh police officer.

Police pick on cyclist
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:52:33 +0000 someone who may be Martin
wrote this:-

I do think that as Mr Cimini was making had some lights on his bike, he
should have just been given a ticking off, but then shinning it in the
cops face would not help his cause.

A police officer once shone a torch in my eyes, refused to point it
at the ground when I pointed out that it is impolite to shine lights
in people's faces and became lippy when I held my hand infront of my
face to stop myself being blinded by the torch.

You have a lot of run-ins with the police, don't you?

Police pick on cyclist
 

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:09:40 +0000, Rob Morley
wrote:

If he'd given his name and address rather than acting like a silly
bugger he'd probably have got away with an informal caution.

Acting like a silly bugger can be a help.

In my much younger days I had an interesting encounter with the police
and played a silly bugger...

My front light was faulty - it needed a bang on its side to get it
working. At about 2am I was at a set of red lights very close to my
home with a police car behind me. There was no other traffic and I
went straight over. The police car followed, it flashed and put on
its blue lights, I ignored it and turned into my service road and to
my front door. The police parked up and confronted me.

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?