"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.