|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008, JNugent wrote:
David Hansen wrote: If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his bike, though they may have been dim. Thus he was not committing an offence and the police had no grounds to ask him for his name and address. Thus the arrest was illegal, just like the fixed penalty notice. If "picked on" means "enforced the law"... yes. He was under an obligation to give his name and address - if requested - under road traffic legislation. Which clause of what road traffic legislation? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
... Maybe like most people, he's just fed up with a vindictive bunch of little hitlers who don't like being proved wrong (in this case by demonstrating his working light to them), and abuse their powers in response. Never an experience I have had myself. Maybe you get what you expect to get? pk |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:49:03 +0000, JNugent
wrote: They challenged my lack of a front light, and I showed them that it worked. They challenged that I went through the red lights, I claimed they were green. The challenged that I did not stop, I claimed I did not know they wanted me to stop as I couldn't see behind me. There was a bit of other stuff that I can't recall. They asked for my name and address, I gave them my name and said (in a silly bugger way), "My address is here". Is lying as blatantly as that something you are proud of? Is anyone ever proud of playing silly buggers? It happened, I did it, I was young, I would not be such an ass now. 22(?) years on I will not hide from how I behaved, but I will not harbour embarrassment for that length of time either; the embarrassing thought "Oh my God, did I really do that?" was reserved for the following morning. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:58:55 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: David Hansen considered Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:57:40 +0000 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:48:16 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe wrote this:- And like many a person who thinks themself law-abiding, the middle class offender is shocked to be treated like a criminal or even "a vagrant". In this case it is not in the least clear whether the person was an offender or not. If the person was not an offender then the subsequent police actions were illegal and the only offenders were the police officers themselves. Indeed, the police seem to have failed at even the most basic level of proof: that the person thy observed "without lights" was actualy the person they subsequently arrested for not giving his name and address. Come one lets be knowing what the "illegal actions are" (You do talk absolute crap) -- Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by the police as such. Phil W(anker) Lee - well known Psycholist |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On Dec 1, 8:58*pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote: David Hansen considered Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:57:40 +0000 the perfect time to write: On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:48:16 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe wrote this:- And like many a person who thinks themself law-abiding, the middle class offender is shocked to be treated like a criminal or even "a vagrant". In this case it is not in the least clear whether the person was an offender or not. If the person was not an offender then the subsequent police actions were illegal and the only offenders were the police officers themselves. Indeed, the police seem to have failed at even the most basic level of proof: that the person thy observed "without lights" was actualy the person they subsequently arrested for not giving his name and address. In fact, given that the person they arrested HAD working (although slightly dim) lights (and even proved it to them), it would seem to indicate the contrary. I think he was guilty of "not agreeing with a policeman", which as most people who have ever had to deal with them will be aware, is as close to a hanging offence as you can get, at least in their eyes. Or he could have had lights that were almost invisible, he then proceeded to wave the light in front of the coppers nose, instead of acting like a reasonable person. If a car driver had had a dim light showing you would expect him to be pulled over, why should it be any different for a cyclist. Like all road users he should check his light before he made his journey. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 1 Dec, 16:39, David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:12:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum wrote this:- The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove that he was not showing *any* lights. The report reports the claims of both sides. I didn't claim otherwise. But most likely, given his acceptance of a fixed penalty, that he failed to display lights at night. You think? Personally I think that it is the threatening words and behaviour. The police had already used threatening words and behaviour. Where in the report did you read that? The police undoubtedly used threatening words in their attempts to make their victim provide information he did not have to provide. The threatening words undoubtedly involved threats of arrest at the roadside. The threatening behaviour included assaulting the victim by placing him in handcuffs, taking him to a police station and putting him in a cell Taking his DNA, and even after proven not guilty not deleting the record |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 1 déc, 18:16, "pk" wrote:
I really would be fascinated to know the origins of your anti-police mindset to which you give vent on many occasions - care to enlighten us? pk questioning authority is healthy & normal |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"PeterG" wrote in message
... If a car driver had had a dim light showing you would expect him to be pulled over, why should it be any different for a cyclist. Like all road users he should check his light before he made his journey. True. However it is possible for a battery to go flat or a bulb to fail during the journey. How often is one supposed to stop and re-check a light *during* a journey to make sure that it is *still* correctly lit? I was surprised how difficult it was to tell, under street lighting, that one of my headlight bulbs had failed: it wasn't until I came up behind a car in front that I saw that only one side of his rear end was lit by my lights. Obviously on an unlit road the lack of one dipped headlight would have been much more apparent. I'd checked when I set off that both my lights illuminated the wall that I park in front of, so I'd done all that I could be reasonably expected to, and as soon as I discovered the fault I stopped and replaced the bulb from the spares that I carry. The cyclist in question was probably prosecuted because he behaved like an arrogant pillock - whilst it is an offence to have a non-functioning light, I'm sure the policeman's decision to be reasonable and fair in the application of the law was swayed by the cyclist's reaction - he brought his downfall upon himself. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
"Mortimer" wrote in message et... "PeterG" wrote in message ... If a car driver had had a dim light showing you would expect him to be pulled over, why should it be any different for a cyclist. Like all road users he should check his light before he made his journey. True. However it is possible for a battery to go flat or a bulb to fail during the journey. How often is one supposed to stop and re-check a light *during* a journey to make sure that it is *still* correctly lit? Get a Cateye TL1100 which throws enough light to the side to reflect off roadside objects. Alternatively, use rechargeables and get into the habit of charging them at least once a week, or get a pair of Reelights or a dynamo. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Police pick on cyclist
On 1 Dec, 20:41, Ian Smith wrote:
Which clause of what road traffic legislation? * Not RTA legislation. Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scot) Act 1995 gives police the power to require a person believed to have committed an offence to provide their name and address. Failure to provide the details is an offence with power of arrest. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1995...#pt2-pb2-l1g13 Iain |
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 |