Police pick on cyclist

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:57:24 -0000, "pk" said in
:

I seem to recall from earlier in the thread that the "shining" in the
officers face served most to demonstrate that the light rapidly faded rather
than show it was properly functioning.

To be honest, the "in the face" bit probably tells us all we need to
know. If it had been a less confrontational "oh dear, it seems to
have gone a bit dim, thank you for bringing that to my attention"
then I venture to suggest that no further problems would have
ensued.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:58:35 -0000, "pk" wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .

It may well have been dimmer than when the cyclist set off, but that
is not the same thing as being dim.


It was the cyclist who was dim for choosing to get lippy.

pk
How the conversation goes can be determined in the first few seconds.
I've had conversations with policemen which begin with "Excuse me sir"
and those that begin with "Oi" or similar. You can probably guess
which went better. My personal experience is small, but things seem to
veer towards the "Excuse me sir" when one gets older. I don't think it
was documented how this particular conversation started.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:13:28 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:58:35 -0000 someone who may be "pk"
wrote this:-

It was the cyclist who was dim for choosing to get lippy.

No, the police officers were dim for continuing when it was
demonstrated that their assertions were incorrect. They should have
apologised and got on with their jobs, instead of persecuting
someone who (it appears from the report) hadn't committed a crime.

The cyclist seems to have been a ****wit - it wasn't you was it?

--

Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. Guy Chapman

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:25:08 -0000 someone who may be "pk"
wrote this:-

as has been pointed out: he accepted that he had by accepting the caution.

As has been pointed out: we don't know what pressure was put on him
to accept the FPN.


--
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

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:24:26 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:25:08 -0000 someone who may be "pk"
wrote this:-

as has been pointed out: he accepted that he had by accepting the caution.

As has been pointed out: we don't know what pressure was put on him
to accept the FPN.

such as?

You do talk tripe you know.

Have you spotted anyone who agrees with your interpretation of events?

No? - neither have I.


--

Many of the facts below in an article seem, on the face of it, to
suggest that helmets are not worthwhile. This could not be further
from the truth; helmets are an excellent idea. Children in particular
should wear them every time they get on a bike. The point is, although
there is no guarantee that a helmet will save your life if you come
off, it's 100% certain that your helmet won't save your life if you're
not wearing it. - Guy Chapman

On Dec 4, 12:32*pm, David Hansen
wrote:

You've missed my other question:
What about attached but not switched on, or attached but dim?
(Situations I see on a nightly basis.)


Calum

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 01:22:59 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

What about attached but not switched on,

I would treat them the same way as motorists with lights not turned
on.

or attached but dim?

I have heard people describe bike lights which are at the BS maximum
electrical power input as being dim. Police officers are certainly
not equipped to make proper judgements on the matter.


--
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

On Dec 4, 12:30*pm, David Hansen
wrote:

They appear to be the only
criminals in this event.


Apparently only to you.
Even the offender accepted his ticket.

Don't let your imagination run away with you again with any nonsense
that he was threatened or pressurised to accept it. He had enough
balls to allow himself to be arrested rather than provide his
identity.

Calum

On Dec 4, 9:24*pm, David Hansen
wrote:


As has been pointed out: we don't know what pressure was put on him
to accept the FPN.

We don't know that *any* pressure was put on him.

Calum

David Hansen wrote:

wrote this:-

What about attached but not switched on,

I would treat them the same way as motorists with lights not turned
on.

Which is... what?

or attached but dim?

I have heard people describe bike lights which are at the BS maximum
electrical power input as being dim. Police officers are certainly
not equipped to make proper judgements on the matter.

Translation:

"This cyclist - no matter what he did, to whom and in what circumstances,
cannot gave been in the wrong - I feel it in my water".