Police pick on cyclist

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.




--
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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:06:01 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.

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.


I wonder why he accepted the fixed penalty charge?

Perhaps because he realised he had committed an offence.

Do you really think he was not committing an offence - because the
lights were only dim? Or is it perhaps you who is?

I suggest that you or Anchor Lee get in touch asap to offer him the
benefit of your fine legal minds.

--
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

On Dec 1, 1:06*pm, David Hansen
wrote:
I see that the police have picked on another cyclist in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-thre....

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.

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights, and
arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name.

"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt.
That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig-
headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a
hard time.

Calum

David Hansen writes:

If the report is true then the cyclist had working lights on his
bike, though they may have been dim.

There is presumably some threshold of dimness below which a light
becomes illegal. Or perhaps there isn't - lighting regulations for
bikes have historically been a bit daft (c.f. illegal LEDs until a few
years ago) and it would not surprise me too much to learn that it's
technically ok to cycle around with dead light batteries.

If I shone my front light into the face of a police officer who'd
stopped me then I'd probably get done for assaulting a police officer
....


-dan

calum writes:

That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig-
headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a
hard time.

Likewise all sociologists, all 30 year olds or all Edinburgh
residents, any of which would be about as valid a generalisation.
"Some people" are, unfortunately, pig-**** stupid and there's little
that can be done about it short of a shovel and a shallow grave.


-dan

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.


Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light" in the
officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk

On Dec 1, 2:05*pm, Daniel Barlow wrote:
calum writes:
That he has the brass neck to then seek publicity for his pig-
headedness just gives some people more excuse to give *all* cyclists a
hard time.

Likewise all sociologists, all 30 year olds or all Edinburgh
residents, any of which would be about as valid a generalisation.
"Some people" are, unfortunately, pig-**** stupid and there's little
that can be done about it short of a shovel and a shallow grave.

-dan

I'm not in complete agreement. None of the other categories you cite
is a regular target for venom from his fellow man (except perhaps for
residents of Edinburgh).

Calum

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:49:56 -0800 (PST) someone who may be calum
wrote this:-

The report states he was stopped for not showing *any* lights,

The report reports the claims of the police. That does not prove
that he was not showing *any* lights. It may be that the police
simply failed to spot the lights amongst the general array of lights
on the road, it may be that the police were unable to see them as
the police were not in the right position (for example looking from
the side), it may be that their view was obstructed by something, it
may be that the police are lying, it may be that the report is
wrong. All sorts of possibilities.

and arrested for subsequently refusing to provide his name.

The police have only limited grounds to request such information. If
the lights were working then they had no grounds to request the
information, unless one imagines that the lights suddenly started
working. Although a light which has been switched off for a while
may be brighter when switched back on I doubt if an exhausted light
would make a comeback.

"Officers told the 30-year-old they had spotted him cycling along the
busy Tollcross Street without any lights on..."

Read on to the next bit after the three dots, "But Mr Cimini
challenged this, claiming he had left his flat with both lights
working".

He accepted a fixed penalty notice and therefore accepted his guilt.

The police had already used threatening words and behaviour. No
doubt this continued and the victim gave in. Many victims do.




--
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 Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:12:37 -0000 someone who may be "pk"
wrote this:-

Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light" in the
officer's face" so they nicked him.

You mean, the police picked on someone they thought would be an easy
target [1] and when he wasn't supplicant enough they got annoyed at
not being shown "respect". No-doubt they thought this would be an
easy one for their box ticking targets.


[1] the police in Edinburgh are noticeable for not turning up with
the same zeal to attend assaults, neds drinking Buckie and being a
nuisance, the activities of the bankers in Edinburgh and a whole
host of other things.



--
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

pk wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...


http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-fined-after-three-hours.4747444.jp.




Rough translation:

"the cyclist got lippy and tried to be clever by shining the "light"
in the officer's face" so they nicked him.

pk

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".

the paragraph
"You couldn't imagine a car driver getting the same treatment for not
having their lights working, you would have thought the police would
have better things to do with their time".

must surely be designed to be crossposted to another group. And that
picture does manage to make him look like the troll toy my sister had in
the early seventies...

RT