Police pick on cyclist

"judith smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:00:47 -0000, "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?

Colin Bignell


Are you just trying to set a trap for him?

I am seeking clarification of an ambiguous remark.

Why not explain the subtle
difference to everyone?

The sentence contains two verbs, so it is unclear which verb the relative
clause applies to.

Colin Bignell

"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.

Colin Bignell

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Mortimer" wrote in message
...

The best combination is a bright tungsten headlight to see by and a
dimmer (*) flashing LED to be seen by.
...
(*) LED technology doesn't seem to have progressed yet to the stage that
you can get a cost-effective LED light that illuminates the road as well
as a tungsten light.

You're a couple of years behind the times. LED lamps are better than
filaments now. Not sure about HID, but they're not included in
'cost-effective'.

Ah, you can get multi-LED lights that cast as much light on the road as
filiament lights now, can you?

In that case, one headlight is sufficient providing it has both a steady and
a flashing beam.

On 2 Dec, 14:11, Fod wrote:
On 2 Dec, 12:30, Roger Thorpe wrote:



Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 12:19, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more
at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to
anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights.
Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few times,
I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including pedestrians
is considerable.
Roger Thorpe
Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.
That makes it alright then.

As I said, the cyclist with no lights is more a danger to themself
than to anyone else, unlike a motorist with no lights who is a danger
to all, given the large mass and velocity difference.

I'm sorry what is your point? That because an unlit car is more
dangerous than a bike the unlit cyclist should be ignored?
Roger Thorpe

Doug justifies all dangerous behavior on bikes on the grounds that
cars are more dangerous.

Nope I am merely pointing out that motorists are raving hypocrites
when they have the gall to accuse cyclists of dangerous behaviour.

Its a bit like saying Hitler killed more people than car drives so
that excuses all car car drivers...

Well if you really want to get into your silly semantics again, it
wasn't Hitler it was his minions who did the killing. Oh yes and it
was us Brits who invented concentration camps. Over to you.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

"Mortimer" wrote in message
et...
"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Mortimer" wrote in message
...

The best combination is a bright tungsten headlight to see by and a
dimmer (*) flashing LED to be seen by.
...
(*) LED technology doesn't seem to have progressed yet to the stage that
you can get a cost-effective LED light that illuminates the road as well
as a tungsten light.

You're a couple of years behind the times. LED lamps are better than
filaments now. Not sure about HID, but they're not included in
'cost-effective'.

Ah, you can get multi-LED lights that cast as much light on the road as
filiament lights now, can you?

You can get single-LED lights which cast more light on the road than many
filament lights. You can get multi-LED lights which cast even more, though
once again 'cost-effective' may be relevant.

In that case, one headlight is sufficient providing it has both a steady
and a flashing beam.

You don't get mixed steady/flashing in decent headlamps.

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.

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:25:00 -0800 (PST) someone who may be PeterG
wrote this:-

Like all road users he should check his light before he made his
journey.

According to the article he says he did. "But Mr Cimini challenged
this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights working"

Next.

Did he say they were switched on whilst he was cycling?

Yes / No / I Don't Know
[delete as appropriate]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 12:19, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far
more
at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to
anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights.
Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few
times,
I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including
pedestrians
is considerable.
Roger Thorpe
Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.
That makes it alright then.

As I said, the cyclist with no lights is more a danger to themself
than to anyone else, unlike a motorist with no lights who is a danger
to all, given the large mass and velocity difference.

I'm sorry what is your point? That because an unlit car is more
dangerous than a bike the unlit cyclist should be ignored?
Roger Thorpe

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

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.

But this is not what you were claiming. You thought that Acts of
Parliament are divided into clauses

I was using the term in the general sense, and used it correctly

(I could make a reasonably confident bet as to *why* you thought
that too)

Because I speak (and type) English so used the common English language
meaning of a common English language word to ask the question? What
other possible reason could there be?

Clauses (the grammatical concept) are very obviously not readily
identifiable by being indexed; it is ludicrous to suggest that you
were asking for a particular grammaical clause to be identified.
You were asking for a section and you called it a clause.

I was not using it in the sense of the grammatical construct. I did
not quote the meaning from the dictionary that deals with the
grammatical construct.

I did not ask you to identify the entire section that contains the
requirement. It may not be an entire section that is relevant. I
wanted the most specific identification possible. What I wanted, in
fact, was for you to identify precisely the particular stipulation of
the relevant act that mandates what you claim. Then I thought - hang
on! there's a term for "particular stipulation of a formal document"
so I decided to use the word. I really don't know why you're banging
on about the fact that I used a word in accordance with the normal
English usage of that word.

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?

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. 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).
The fact that I don't know it does not mean that it doesn't exist - and
another poster has already given it.

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).

"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.

What is the reason? Presumably as long as sufficient light is steady, you
won't get the problem that your view of the road ahead is only seen
intermittently. If you (the cyclist) can see where you are going and the
motorist can see you better because your flashing light stands out better
than if there was *only* a steady light, then everyone wins. Don't they?

The biggest problem for other road users when a bike is coming towards them
is distinguishing their headlight from all the other lights and reflections
around them which may be bigger and/or brighter. If the bike light flashes,
it will stand out from everything else.

I'm not advocating *only* having a flashing front light - I'm advocating a
combination light that serves both needs - both "see" and "be seen".