Police pick on cyclist

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:12:30 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

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.

There are two possible errors here. One possible error is that the
batteries had run down a little [1], the other is that you happened
to have a working set of lights with you but had failed to attach
them to your vehicle. Assuming you checked the lights before you set
off the second error can be discounted. That leaves the first error.
In that case you had not been cycling without lights, no matter what
false assertions the police officers may make.

Would the police not
be justified in taking my details if I refused to accept
their warning?

Their warning would be invalid in the circumstances you outline. Why
should you accept a "warning" for something you didn't do? The
police would be better employed looking for criminals, of which
there are a fair number in Edinburgh.



[1] if the batteries had run down a lot then it would not have been
possible to shine the lamp in the police officer's eyes, something
which implies a fair amount of light came out of the lamp. Rather
there would have been a dull orange glow from a filament bulb or
probably no light at all from LEDs.



--
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 14:59:55 GMT someone who may be Mike Clark
wrote this:-

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,

I'm not sure that it does. Some may have a pedantic view, but I'm
not convinced it pervades the newsgroup.


--
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 4 Dec, 15:06, David Hansen wrote:

There are two possible errors here. One possible error is that the
batteries had run down a little [1], the other is that you happened
to have a working set of lights with you but had failed to attach
them to your vehicle. Assuming you checked the lights before you set
off the second error can be discounted. That leaves the first error.
In that case you had not been cycling without lights, no matter what
false assertions the police officers may make.

You obviously didn't read what I posted.
For a start I was using a hub dynamo and, more importantly, I
thought my lights were on when they were not.

Their warning would be invalid in the circumstances you outline. Why
should you accept a "warning" for something you didn't do?

But I did do it, I just wasn't aware of it at the time.

[1] if the batteries had run down a lot then it would not have been
possible to shine the lamp in the police officer's eyes, something
which implies a fair amount of light came out of the lamp. Rather
there would have been a dull orange glow from a filament bulb or
probably no light at all from LEDs.

If it was a charge pumped LED the batteries could easily have
recovered enough to show a brief burst of light.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

"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

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news

I'm not sure that it does. Some may have a pedantic view, but I'm
not convinced it pervades the newsgroup.



Quite correct most people don't, but you most certainly do!

pk

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.


--
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, 4 Dec 2008 17:00:38 -0000 someone who may be "pk"
wrote this:-

Quite correct most people don't, but you most certainly do!

Excellent, a personal attack. Do keep it up.

Discussing individuals rather than the subject is a good sign that
someone doesn't have any better arguments.



--
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, 4 Dec 2008 07:54:35 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

You obviously didn't read what I posted.

Incorrect.

However, I certainly don't have a big enough brain to keep every
little detail in my head and so I forgot that you were talking about
a hub dynamo in your particular case, rather then this particular
case. I apologise.




--
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 in message
...
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.


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

pk