On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
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?

Err, yes. What I did there was question the accuracy of a statement
you presented as fact. That statement was that there is some
obligation under road traffic legislation for a cyclist being
questioned by police to provide a name and address.

I believe that statement is utter ********. I am trying to determine
if it is me that is wrong or you that is wrong. On the basis of the
evidence offered, it seems that it is you that is wrong.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Well, actually I do, obviously. You're trying to deflect attention
from the fact that you were talking rubbish. You were wrong, and
you'd rather did a deeper hole for yourself than admit it.

Carry on.

Have you finished?

How could you compose that wriggle and fail to address this bit?

It's not me that's wriggling.
It's not me that's making things up and claiming they are in
legislation.

QUOTE:
Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here
legal system in Scotland...
ENDQUOTE

There is no part of the UK where a vehicle-user is exempt from
providing a name and address to a police officer who reasonably
requires it.

Under what part (sentence, clause, segment, paragraph, page, clause,
bullet-point, schedule, section, portion, extract, lump, chunk or
other term of your choice to indicate a discrete element of text) of
what road traffic legislation do you make this claim for England?

Clue: you're still talking ********.

A driver of a MOTOR vehicle is obliged so to do under RTA 1988 part 1
of section 165.

I will accept readily (see the quoted section above) that I do not
know the exact part of the legislation that covers that in Scotland
(not by a long chalk).

Go on then, tell me what road traffic legislation makes it so for
England.

The fact that I don't know it does not mean that it doesn't exist -
and another poster has already given it.

The other poster explicitly highlighted that the legislation is
nothing to do with road traffic legislation.

Do carry on digging.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|