|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Mortimer" wrote in message
et... "Clive George" wrote in message et... However having a flashing front lamp isn't necessarily a great idea, for reasons which have been discussed in great length on this NG. If you're interested, check the archives. That would take a long time without any dates or thread titles. Without any search engine, yes it would. Fortunately I believe there are companies out there who provide such things, and without the requirement to shell out cash either. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote: Ian Smith wrote: JNugent wrote: Ian Smith wrote: JNugent wrote: He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested - under road traffic legislation. Which clause of what road traffic legislation? "Clause"? Acts don't have clauses; they have sections. I take that as an admission that actually no road traffic legislation requires it. That, in fact, your assertion was wrong. Actually, you seem to have forgotten what you read. Here it is again: STARTQUOTE: He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested - under road traffic legislation. Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here legal system in Scotland, he didn't give his name and address when lawfully required to, the police would have been within their rights to arrest him (which oddly enough, seems to have been their view too). If it were otherwise, how could cycling law ever be enforced? ENDQUOTE See what you did there? Err, yes. What I did there was question the accuracy of a statement you presented as fact. That statement was that there is some obligation under road traffic legislation for a cyclist being questioned by police to provide a name and address. I believe that statement is utter ********. I am trying to determine if it is me that is wrong or you that is wrong. On the basis of the evidence offered, it seems that it is you that is wrong. Thank you for clearing that up. Well, actually I do, obviously. You're trying to deflect attention from the fact that you were talking rubbish. You were wrong, and you'd rather did a deeper hole for yourself than admit it. Carry on. Have you finished? How could you compose that wriggle and fail to address this bit? It's not me that's wriggling. It's not me that's making things up and claiming they are in legislation. QUOTE: Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here legal system in Scotland... ENDQUOTE There is no part of the UK where a vehicle-user is exempt from providing a name and address to a police officer who reasonably requires it. Under what part (sentence, clause, segment, paragraph, page, clause, bullet-point, schedule, section, portion, extract, lump, chunk or other term of your choice to indicate a discrete element of text) of what road traffic legislation do you make this claim for England? Clue: you're still talking ********. A driver of a MOTOR vehicle is obliged so to do under RTA 1988 part 1 of section 165. I will accept readily (see the quoted section above) that I do not know the exact part of the legislation that covers that in Scotland (not by a long chalk). Go on then, tell me what road traffic legislation makes it so for England. The fact that I don't know it does not mean that it doesn't exist - and another poster has already given it. The other poster explicitly highlighted that the legislation is nothing to do with road traffic legislation. Do carry on digging. -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Clive George" wrote in message
et... "Mortimer" wrote in message et... "Clive George" wrote in message et... However having a flashing front lamp isn't necessarily a great idea, for reasons which have been discussed in great length on this NG. If you're interested, check the archives. That would take a long time without any dates or thread titles. Without any search engine, yes it would. Fortunately I believe there are companies out there who provide such things, and without the requirement to shell out cash either. Right, Google Groups returns threads such as http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....uk.rec.cycling http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec...uk.rec.cycling which say that a flashing light *on its own* is useless but in combination with a steady filiament or LED light is good for attracting attention. However one person says that he finds it harder to judge how far away a flashing light is than a steady one. Maybe that is the point you are making - but you haven't given me a lot to go on. It would have been so much easier if you had supplied a self-contained posting which contained all the information that you were referring to, rather than saying "It's a bad idea - now go looking and see if you can find any evidence to back up and explain my statement". |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:53:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim Hall wrote: Have you tried it with porridge oats and oil instead? More crumbly, IYSWIM. Overlap to shedspace! Is "shedspace" a magnet for ****wits? -- I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads. (Guy Chapman) I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie. He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date of last amendment |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
In article , Mortimer
says... Actually a flashing LED light, whether at the front or the back, is *much* easier to see and to distinguish from all other lights, reflections of lights off shiny objects etc. Not when you're driving a lorry and overtaking them. You can't see them at all once they've dropped 20ft back from the front of the cab. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:30:11 +0000, Tom Wright
wrote: Colin Reed wrote: Well whoop-de-bloody-doo. Next you'll be telling us that crumble isn't made from fruit, only from apples. On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:59:12 +0000, Tom Wright wrote: mode type="facetious" Well actually, it's made from flour, sugar and butter. /mode Tim Hall wrote: Have you tried it with porridge oats and oil instead? More crumbly, IYSWIM. No but I will now, thanks! Mrs. Hall says half flour, half porridge. Mrs. Beeton is silent on the matter. -- Tim |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Conor" wrote in message
... In article , Mortimer says... Actually a flashing LED light, whether at the front or the back, is *much* easier to see and to distinguish from all other lights, reflections of lights off shiny objects etc. Not when you're driving a lorry and overtaking them. You can't see them at all once they've dropped 20ft back from the front of the cab. Er why should the fact that the light is flashing rather than steady make any difference to the visibility from certain vehicles and at certain distances? Are you saying that if exactly the same light is switched from flashing to continuous, you'll be able to see a light that couldn't be seen before? Or are you comparing steady filiament light with flashing (or steady) LED light? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
Ian Smith wrote:
STARTQUOTE: He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested - under road traffic legislation. Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here legal system in Scotland, he didn't give his name and address when lawfully required to, the police would have been within their rights to arrest him (which oddly enough, seems to have been their view too). If it were otherwise, how could cycling law ever be enforced? ENDQUOTE See what you did there? Err, yes. What I did there was question the accuracy of a statement you presented as fact. That statement was that there is some obligation under road traffic legislation for a cyclist being questioned by police to provide a name and address. I believe that statement is utter ********. I am trying to determine if it is me that is wrong or you that is wrong. On the basis of the evidence offered, it seems that it is you that is wrong. Thank you for clearing that up. Well, actually I do, obviously. You're trying to deflect attention from the fact that you were talking rubbish. You were wrong, and you'd rather did a deeper hole for yourself than admit it. Carry on. Have you finished? How could you compose that wriggle and fail to address this bit? It's not me that's wriggling. It's not me that's making things up and claiming they are in legislation. QUOTE: Subject to the weird and wonderful separate-but-effectively-the-same-as-here legal system in Scotland... ENDQUOTE There is no part of the UK where a vehicle-user is exempt from providing a name and address to a police officer who reasonably requires it. Under what part (sentence, clause, segment, paragraph, page, clause, bullet-point, schedule, section, portion, extract, lump, chunk or other term of your choice to indicate a discrete element of text) of what road traffic legislation do you make this claim for England? Clue: you're still talking ********. A driver of a MOTOR vehicle is obliged so to do under RTA 1988 part 1 of section 165. I will accept readily (see the quoted section above) that I do not know the exact part of the legislation that covers that in Scotland (not by a long chalk). Go on then, tell me what road traffic legislation makes it so for England. You might want to take a look at Section 168 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act: 168. [...] (b) the rider of a cycle who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 28 or 29 of this Act, who refuses, on being so required by any person having reasonable ground for so requiring, to give his name or address, or gives a false name or address, is guilty of an offence. But you might reasonably argue that Ss. 28/29 don't cover riding during the hours of darkness without (adequate) lights. And in that case, the principal power (for any non-arrestable offence, not just road traffic offences) would be S.25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: 25. — (1) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that *any* [my emphasis] offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable *or* [my emphasis again] inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied. (2) In this section “the relevant person” means any person whom the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed or having attempted to commit the offence or of being in the course of committing or attempting to commit it. (3) The general arrest conditions are— (a) that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable; (b) that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name; (c) that— (i) the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service; or (ii) the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service... The fact that I don't know it does not mean that it doesn't exist - and another poster has already given it. The other poster explicitly highlighted that the legislation is nothing to do with road traffic legislation. Except that (like S25 PACE) it applies to road traffic offences just as it does to any others, you mean? |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Tim Hall wrote: Mrs. Hall says half flour, half porridge. Mrs. Beeton is silent on the matter. The Glasgow Cookery Book says: 4oz flour 2oz butter 1 1/2oz sugar And serve with custard sauce, and fie upon you if you do not. Are we sure this is not a wormhole into the Shed? - -- Guy May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk ================================================== ===================== ** Please see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Troll_code ** ================================================== ===================== GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJNcYhHBDrsD+jvN4RAigLAJ0Sg51xV3T05ryyGV74Jt XhhhzALgCdHFy1 NC4TBdu2wxSKYhDqPErKBkE= =n49N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
In article , Mortimer
says... Not when you're driving a lorry and overtaking them. You can't see them at all once they've dropped 20ft back from the front of the cab. Or are you comparing steady filiament light with flashing (or steady) LED light? I'm comparing large round filament light, typically 2"+ to small LEDs. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
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 |