|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:48:14 +0000 someone who may be Danny Colyer wrote this:- It's been demonstrated that in Scotland (which is where the incident occurred) there is legislation requiring individuals to provide their name and address to the police if the police have grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. They had no grounds. The cyclist demonstrated to them that he had working lights. Did he "demonstrate" that they had been switched on whilst cycling during the hours of darkness? If so, how, and where is it repoorted? The chances of a cyclist having working lights with them but not attaching them being, I would suggest, as close to zero as makes no difference. Does that mean that a cyclist merely has to have the lights with him (maybe in a bag), and that it makes no difference if he does not either attach or use them? |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:54:56 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon wrote this:- Aa you are the fount of all knowledge, Nice try. would you be able to tell us all when a light is so dim as to no longer be a light? I don't think the law specifies that. However, I doubt that a battery powered light would recover too much of its brightness in a few minutes. We are told that the cyclist checked his light were working before he set off and one of them was bright enough to shine in the police officers eyes after he had removed it from the bike. Therefore it seems fairly certain that no crime was committed by the cyclist and the police had no grounds for demanding his details. Where is it reported that he was using the lights whilst cycling? |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
Doug wrote:
JNugent wrote: Why is it that the motorists who dominate these newsgroups are always trying to dictate to others what should or should not be posted there? I think it's you who is doing that, Doug - read on. I brought in the first post in this thread to uk.transport by transplanting it from uk.rec.cycling, on the basis that I wanted to make a single point about a single poster who is - or was - well-known here (ukt). That's no excuse for tampering with a thread. The ukt thread was not tampered with (you can't "tamper" with the first post in a thread). My OP did not even appear in ukrc (because it was not relevant there). But I did not cross-post it. I trimmed ukrc out of the newsgroup line and have not amended that since, though I note that someone (I wonder who?) has added ukrc back to the NG line (I don't know why). In order to restore the original thread, obviously. My thread in ukt was irrelevant to ukrc. D. Hansen is known in ukt in his own right. What is so difficult for you to understand about that? Why would you want to exclude other posters from the thread? That's a rhetorical question by the way, the answer is obvious. Let's treat it as a proper question: (a) ukt posters were not excluded from the thread I started there; (b) ukrc posters were not excluded from the original thread there; (c) my post in ukt was not a cross-posting of the thread. What's the problem? Well, you seem unable to grasp the fact that despite their having the same title, these were two different threads in two different places, for two different audiences with two different points being made in the OPs (only one of which was mine, of course). The reference to uk.legal and alt.usage.english was not made seriously and I am not surprised that it flew past you several feet above your head. It didn't. I doubt that. And of course, it was made in a later post. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 4 Dec, 08:38, David Hansen wrote:
They had no grounds. The cyclist demonstrated to them that he had working lights. Really? If someone shines a light in your face do you think you could tell if the lens was marked with the BS kitemark and BS6102/3? There are a lot of perfectly good cycle lights out there that are not technically legal because they are not BS approved. Even the ones that say 'conforms to BS6102/3' are not necessarily legal. The chances of a cyclist having working lights with them but not attaching them being, I would suggest, as close to zero as makes no difference. I once cycled without lights. As a hub dynamo user before the days of front standlights I must have subconsiously switched them off when I stopped at the supermarket, it was only when I turned into an unlit road I realised my mistake. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 02:34:57 -0800 (PST) someone who may be francis
wrote this:- Do you think it was a good idea to shine the light in his eyes, he could have demonstrated that it worked without doing that. Whether I think it wise or not (or indeed whether I would have done the same thing) doesn't really add anything useful to the discussion. The important point is that, the cyclist having demonstrated that the light was working, the police officers had no grounds for demanding his details. They appear to be the only criminals in this event. -- 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 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:09:01 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:- The report only mentions that he demonstrated his (dim) front light. I suggest that if it was dim then shining it into the police officers eyes would have not had much effect. It may well have been dimmer than when the cyclist set off, but that is not the same thing as being dim. -- 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 |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 4 Dec, 08:54, Tony Dragon wrote:
when a light is so dim as to no longer be a light? Perhaps when the output falls below the minimum luminous intensity as specified in BS6102/3, or the colour falls outside the chromaticity limits. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 4 Dec, 12:44, David Hansen wrote:
There are plenty of bike lights which are not approved to the (not particularly good) British Standard. They are legal. Only if they comply with an equivalent EU standard, not all do. The point is simply switching it on to show it emits lights isn't sufficient. Had the police spotted you then I would have no objection to them stopping you to ask about the crime. Once you had shown them that you had working lights I would have expected them to advise you to be more careful in the future, mind how you go and preferably salute you as you left. Had you not had working lights, or to be precise a working front light, then I would have had no objection to them taking further action. What if I hadn't noticed the error and was locking the bike up when the police approached. What if I then refused to accept that I had been cycling without lights and demonstrated that they were in working order. Would the police not be justified in taking my details if I refused to accept their warning? Is it not possible something like this happened here? |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
In message you wrote:
On 4 Dec, 12:44, David Hansen wrote: There are plenty of bike lights which are not approved to the (not particularly good) British Standard. They are legal. Only if they comply with an equivalent EU standard, not all do. The point is simply switching it on to show it emits lights isn't sufficient. The more practical and pragmatic point is to ask when was the last time you heard of a cyclist prosecuted for using a commercially sold cycle lamp on their bike, but which did not have the appropriate certification to a defined standard? The bike shops in Cambridge stock large numbers of lights that don't appear to bear the appropriate markings but which never-the-less are sold to customers as fit for purpose. Whilst the pedantic view pervades newsgroups such as this, my personal observations in Cambridge are that the police tend to focus their occasional attention on cyclists who do not have any lights, but that they do not stop cyclists with lights and then seek to check whether they are standards compliant. As for the argument that standards compliance may come into play should you have an injury and the insurers seek to show contributory negligence, again I think the pragmatic question is to ask how it would be proved in court that your lights were not compliant? How is the evidence likely to be collected and verified? Do the police routinely make very detailed notes on the particular components on the bikes involved in accidents or do they simply list whether or not they had lights (if they bother to list anything at all)? I suggest that in such a circumstance the most important thing is to have a witness to the fact that your bike was displaying lights at the time, which simply means they should have been obvious enough to the observer. I pick my bike lights based on my own observations on how easy they are to see, to fit, and to see by. Whether or not they are BS or CE compliant is not a major part of the consideration, although if it comes down to a selection between one or two short listed lights then it may become a deciding factor. Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark \__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, " || _`\,_ |__\ \ | reader in immunology, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mystery Cyclist turns themselves over to Police... | Gemma_k | Australia | 5 | June 15th 06 11:56 AM |
BBC - Cyclist Chased & Hit by Police car | Adrian Boliston | UK | 39 | September 20th 05 12:41 PM |
Police officer injures cyclist | David Hansen | UK | 5 | June 4th 05 08:59 PM |
Police kill cyclist | MSeries | UK | 22 | July 14th 04 01:27 PM |
Chatting to a Police Cyclist Today | [Not Responding] | UK | 14 | June 19th 04 12:08 AM |