Police pick on cyclist

On 03/12/2008 08:16, Ian Smith wrote:
So, still waiting for your demonstration that your original
statement - that police observing a cyclist doing anything wrong can
demand their name and address under road traffic legislation.

Ian, why the f*** does it matter whether it's covered by road traffic
legislation? 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. As long as the
legislation is there, it makes absolutely no difference whether it is
under road traffic legislation or not.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

On 3 Dec, 14:02, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 18:30, JNugent wrote:
nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 2 Dec, 09:00, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message
...
...
Anyway, he was arrested for refusing to giv to give e his name and
address
which is quite common.
Which are you saying is quite common? Failing to give a name and address
or
being arrested for failing to do so when legally required?
Arrested for failing to do so whether legally required or not.
I see the goalposts are moving again.
On reflection, the whole thread should have been x-posted to
alt-usage.english (and maybe uk.legal).
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.

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. Why would you want
to exclude other posters from the thread? That's a rhetorical question
by the way, the answer is obvious.

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. Like most of your stuff it just wasn't relevant.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 03/12/2008 08:16, Ian Smith wrote:
So, still waiting for your demonstration that your original
statement - that police observing a cyclist doing anything wrong can
demand their name and address under road traffic legislation.

Ian, why the f*** does it matter whether it's covered by road traffic
legislation?

Because jnugent said it was, and I didn't think there was such a
requirement, and while you may be happy to be in such a state, I don't
like f***ing ignorance.

If you're happy believing our blessed police force can do no wrong,
fine.

If you're happy to believe everything you read on the internet,
fine.

I am not.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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. 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.

At this point grown-ups would have apologised for wasting the
cyclist's time and left to do something useful.



--
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

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. 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.

At this point grown-ups would have apologised for wasting the
cyclist's time and left to do something useful.




Aa you are the fount of all knowledge, would you be able to tell us all
when a light is so dim as to no longer be a light?

--
Tony the Dragon

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.


--
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

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

On that narrow point of interpreation, you are the outright and undisputed
eventual winner.

Congratulations!

Hmm. A case of the clause calling the section black?

On 4 Dec, 09:49, 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.

--
* 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

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.


Francis

On Dec 4, 8:38*am, David Hansen
wrote:

They had no grounds.

Crikey, I didn't realise you were a witness.

The cyclist demonstrated to them that he had
working lights.

The report only mentions that he demonstrated his (dim) front light.

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.

What about attached but not switched on, or attached but dim?
(Situations I see on a nightly basis.)


Calum

Danny Colyer wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:

So, still waiting for your demonstration that your original statement
- that police observing a cyclist doing anything wrong can demand
their name and address under road traffic legislation.

Ian, why the f*** does it matter whether it's covered by road traffic
legislation? 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. As long as the
legislation is there, it makes absolutely no difference whether it is
under road traffic legislation or not.

AAMOF, I think IS's point was justified.

I said "road traffic legislation" and it turned out that I was wrong - the
1988 RTA only empowers a constable to seek a cyclist's name and address for
certain offences, one of which is not "cycling without lights".

That surprised me, but then again, this is a 1988 Act, and was presumably
drafted as a Bill in the light of the extant provisions of the 1984 Police
and Crimional Evidence Act, which allows a constable to demand the name and
address of anyone suspected of committing any offence - including "cycling
without lights". Thesame Act allows an arrest where the name and address are
not forthcoming or appear to be false.