On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:43:54 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 04/12/2013 12:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 04/12/2013 12:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 12:09, wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 10:56:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 10:12, wrote:

From my experience, it's rare that the "exception" applies. As I
said, plod could have "had a word" even if he hadn't seen the
infringement occur and was giving the motorist the benefit of the
doubt.

So... there's no evidence of an offence...

I accept that if PC didn't see the prior events he's no evidence to
nick him,

Even if he had seen "the prior events", there need be no reason to
"nick" the driver.

so he should remind the driver of the purpose of the cycle box rather
than assume, probably wrongly, that the "exception" applies.

Why would the policeman conclude that the driver is not as aware of
the law as the policeman himself?

Perhaps you really mean that the policemen should use every
opportunity to "remind" all drivers stopped at red traffic lights of
the law on red traffic lights?

What? the law that applies to the users of all wheeled vehicles? I
think that the cyclists would be up in arms about that, after all,
their journeys are too important to interrupt by stopping at red
lights, or give way lines, or pedestrian crossings. In fact, if I ever
get stopped for anything again I am going to play the 'I'm a cyclist'
card and therefore immune to prosecution/road laws.

I wonder how long it will be before there is a new set of laws that
give all sorts of rights to cyclists, they will be become the new jews,
and it will be forbidden to say anything against them. ADL for
cyclists, anyone?

Is there any need for that last paragraph?

No.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906, summing Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of
thought and expression.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire