Brighton Cyclist 900 quid down

On 11 Oct, 00:09, "DavidR" wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote



According to the police commentary they were hassling the cyclist with no
lights because he was "a danger to himself" whereas the driver with no
lights was just warned "because in a modern car you are safer with air
bags to protect you". *And as pointed out later, the cyclist crossed the
junction on a green light.

I may be nmistaken but I thought the point of lights is to make something
visible. Now, this person was clearly picked out on camera and easily
noticed from some distance away by the policemen. It demonstrates that
lights would have made absolutely no difference and that dark clothing is
also pretty good hi-viz. Oh, and when we saw him he was riding on the road.

So, is the requirement to have lights merely for its own sake or is it to do
something useful? I really wonder sometimes.

The cyclist will become 'invisible' to some motorists when it rains.
Also, you need to consider on othe r roads, there will be a greater
need for the cyclist to see and be seen. The lights are there for all
road users including pedestrians. They expect to see moving vehicles
lit at night, whatever their motive power. Lights (of a decent size)
on a vehicle also enable other road users to make a better judge of
the vehicles speed. The unlit vehicle's speed is difficult to assess,
the addition of lights make for greater safety for the onlooker.

The rider was probably only going to get a quick word in his ear
except he ignored the traffic signal in front of two uniformed
officers under the public gaze.

On Oct 11, 12:09*am, "DavidR" wrote:


I may be mistaken but I thought the point of lights is to make something
visible. Now, this person was clearly picked out on camera and easily
noticed from some distance away by the policemen. It demonstrates that
lights would have made absolutely no difference and that dark clothing is
also pretty good hi-viz. Oh, and when we saw him he was riding on the road.

So, is the requirement to have lights merely for its own sake or is it to do
something useful? I really wonder sometimes.

The road had street lights, but not all roads do. The cyclist would
have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night. What
do you not understand about the law that states that all vehicles
(includes bikes) should carry a white light to the front and a red
light to the rear at night?

Derek C

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:18:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:37:10 +0100, "winston"
wrote:


I thought the police were remarkably retrained, although there were
cameras
present. Personally I'd have arrested the ******* and allowed him the
pleasure of a night in the cells - AND - I'd have done him for being
drunk
in charge of a push bike.

What's the drink-ride limit for a bike then? or is it just the plods
personal diagnosis and interpretation of 'unfit'.
Surely ignoring traffic lights , riding on pavement etc, doesn't mean
'drunk', as most cyclists do it , ( sorry "idiots on bikes") , all of the
time. Now, if he had collided with the the traffic lights ..........!!

I have been arrested and prosecuted and found innocent *twice* of the
charge of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

So you are a self confessed ****head?

That explains a lot.

I was found innocent of all charges against me.

Derek C wrote:

The road had street lights, but not all roads do. The cyclist would
have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night.

So would a pedestrian but they are not required to carry lights. What's
the difference?

Tony

On Oct 11, 7:29*am, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:

The road had street lights, but not all roads do. The cyclist would
have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night.

So would a pedestrian but they are not required to carry lights. *What's
the difference?

Tony

Bicyles are required by law to ride on the road (carriageway) and to
carry working front and rear lights at night. Pedestrians are supposed
to be on the Footpath. Even pedestrians are supposed to wear light
coloured or reflective clothing and to carry lights on roads where
there is no footpath at night. See:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070108

Why are psycholists so averse to carrying lights at night? They ride
bikes costing hundreds of pounds but won't spend a tenner on a couple
of lights that weight very little. It's for their own safety and the
safety of others such as pedestrians.

Derek C

On Oct 11, 8:48*am, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:29*am, Tony Raven wrote:

Derek C wrote:

The road had street lights, but not all roads do. The cyclist would
have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night.

So would a pedestrian but they are not required to carry lights. *What's
the difference?

Tony

Bicyles are required by law to ride on the road (carriageway) and to
carry working front and rear lights at night. Pedestrians are supposed
to be on the Footpath. Even pedestrians are supposed to wear light
coloured or reflective clothing and to carry lights on roads where
there is no footpath at night. See:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070108

Why are psycholists so averse to carrying lights at night? They ride
bikes costing hundreds of pounds but won't spend a tenner on a couple
of lights that weight very little. It's for their own safety and the
safety of others such as pedestrians.

Derek C

It might also be useful to read the Highway Code requirements for
cyclists:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_069837

On Oct 11, 7:29*am, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:

The road had street lights, but not all roads do. The cyclist would
have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night.

So would a pedestrian but they are not required to carry lights. *What's
the difference?

Tony

Oh dear, Mr. Raving is trying to be clever again, and failing.

On 11 Oct, 06:08, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:18:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"



wrote:

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:37:10 +0100, "winston"
wrote:

I thought the police were remarkably retrained, although there were
cameras
present. *Personally I'd have arrested the ******* and allowed him the
pleasure of a night in the cells - AND - I'd have done him for being
drunk
in charge of a push bike.

What's the drink-ride limit for a bike then? or is it just the plods
personal diagnosis and interpretation of 'unfit'.
Surely ignoring traffic lights , riding on pavement etc, doesn't mean
'drunk', as most cyclists do it , ( sorry "idiots on bikes") , all of the
time. Now, if he had collided with the the traffic lights ..........!!

I have been arrested and prosecuted and found innocent *twice* of the
charge of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

So you are a self confessed ****head?

That explains a lot.

I was found innocent of all charges against me.

The doctors statement being " He wus es pished as I wos"?

On 11 Oct, 07:29, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:

The road had street lights, but not all roads do. The cyclist would
have been very difficult to see on an unlit road on a dark night.

So would a pedestrian but they are not required to carry lights. *What's
the difference?

It is recommended that they do when there is no footpath at the side
of the road and so they have to walk(or run) on the carriageway. They
should only have to negotiate with other pedestrians when on a
footpath and a bump at walking pace (it happens in thick fog) does
not generally cause lasting injury.


Tony

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:18:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:37:10 +0100, "winston"
wrote:


I thought the police were remarkably retrained, although there were
cameras
present. Personally I'd have arrested the ******* and allowed him the
pleasure of a night in the cells - AND - I'd have done him for being
drunk
in charge of a push bike.

What's the drink-ride limit for a bike then? or is it just the plods
personal diagnosis and interpretation of 'unfit'.
Surely ignoring traffic lights , riding on pavement etc, doesn't mean
'drunk', as most cyclists do it , ( sorry "idiots on bikes") , all of
the
time. Now, if he had collided with the the traffic lights ..........!!

I have been arrested and prosecuted and found innocent *twice* of the
charge of being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

So you are a self confessed ****head?

That explains a lot.

I was found innocent of all charges against me.

Being found innocent is not the same as not being drunk in charge.