Commuting Dilemma

mballany

I am food chain number 4, and am an updraded fixie, also a roadie. Use the fixie for commuting a lumpy 17 miles a day. Why is it that yobs in beat up cavaliers seem to delight in pulling out at junctions when they have obviously seen me, and also what pleasure is gained in driving alongside a cyclist with their passenger window rolled down, hurling abuse?? :evil:

downfader

mballany wrote:

I am food chain number 4, and am an updraded fixie, also a roadie. Use the fixie for commuting a lumpy 17 miles a day. Why is it that yobs in beat up cavaliers seem to delight in pulling out at junctions when they have obviously seen me, and also what pleasure is gained in driving alongside a cyclist with their passenger window rolled down, hurling abuse?? :evil:

Welcome!

Do as some of us now do and fit a camera to your bike or helmet!

ChrisLS

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

cjcp

mballany wrote:

I am food chain number 4, and am an updraded fixie, also a roadie. Use the fixie for commuting a lumpy 17 miles a day. Why is it that yobs in beat up cavaliers seem to delight in pulling out at junctions when they have obviously seen me, and also what pleasure is gained in driving alongside a cyclist with their passenger window rolled down, hurling abuse?? :evil:

Take pity on them: not five minutes earlier, they had probably dragged themselves out of the swamp of primeval amidst a cacophany of grunts and snorts. I see no other explanation for being seen in a Cavalier.

Good job you're safe though.

downfader

ChrisLS wrote:

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

My Bro uses the same gloves for cycling as the CHIPs unit in the US use for motorcycle cops. They are leather with lead shot in them. He could punch through a window if he needed to, and I've heard of the CHIPs guys breaking jaws with these things (go on youtube - loads of demos of average guys breaking bricks apparently)

:twisted:

Downwardi

downfader wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

My Bro uses the same gloves for cycling as the CHIPs unit in the US use for motorcycle cops. They are leather with lead shot in them. He could punch through a window if he needed to, and I've heard of the CHIPs guys breaking jaws with these things (go on youtube - loads of demos of average guys breaking bricks apparently)

:twisted:

They are listed as Cycling Gloves and sold locally too - Might be worth a look

andrewgturnbull

downfader wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

My Bro uses the same gloves for cycling as the CHIPs unit in the US use for motorcycle cops. They are leather with lead shot in them. He could punch through a window if he needed to, and I've heard of the CHIPs guys breaking jaws with these things (go on youtube - loads of demos of average guys breaking bricks apparently)

:twisted:

Yeah, that sounds like a sensible solution...

Which one of you was the neanderthal again?

Cheers, Andy

andrewgturnbull

downfader wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

My Bro uses the same gloves for cycling as the CHIPs unit in the US use for motorcycle cops. They are leather with lead shot in them. He could punch through a window if he needed to, and I've heard of the CHIPs guys breaking jaws with these things (go on youtube - loads of demos of average guys breaking bricks apparently)

:twisted:

Yeah, that sounds like a sensible solution...

Which one of you was the neanderthal again?

Cheers, Andy

downfader

andrewgturnbull wrote:

downfader wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

My Bro uses the same gloves for cycling as the CHIPs unit in the US use for motorcycle cops. They are leather with lead shot in them. He could punch through a window if he needed to, and I've heard of the CHIPs guys breaking jaws with these things (go on youtube - loads of demos of average guys breaking bricks apparently)

:twisted:

Yeah, that sounds like a sensible solution...

Which one of you was the neanderthal again?

Cheers, Andy

Argh. Just realised how that looks. Nah I mean punch through a window in an emergency, not in anger.

meanwhile

andrewgturnbull wrote:

downfader wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...they are bullies and cowards, who either have to be surrounded by glass and metal or be in a group or gang. Usually when I get abuse shouted at me I can't hear what's been shouted as the dimwits don't realise that shouts from a moving vehicle can't be heard :roll: :? ...I have never had the privalage of them slowing down to give me the beneifit of their wit and wisdom...I have this fantasy of blowing out their tyres with a shot gun, that would shut 'em up... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

My Bro uses the same gloves for cycling as the CHIPs unit in the US use for motorcycle cops. They are leather with lead shot in them. He could punch through a window if he needed to, and I've heard of the CHIPs guys breaking jaws with these things (go on youtube - loads of demos of average guys breaking bricks apparently)

:twisted:

Yeah, that sounds like a sensible solution...

..And will certainly NEVER provoke someone into ramming you.

Which one of you was the neanderthal again?

Uh! Ug anger Big Metal Box - he not scared! He give his life for evolution!

Also, to point out what should be really obvious, gloves loaded with lead shot count as a concealed weapon and may get you a criminal record if caught.

downfader

meanwhile wrote:

Also, to point out what should be really obvious, gloves loaded with lead shot count as a concealed weapon and may get you a criminal record if caught.

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

If you have any specific info to the contrary please forward it to me.

RufusA

downfader wrote:

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

Regina v R - 15th Nov 2007
Lord Justice Laws ruled that Leather gloves with a padding of lead/sand over the knuckle area were capable in law of being an offensive weapon.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 123551.ece

HTH - Rufus.

spen666

RufusA wrote:

downfader wrote:

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

Regina v R - 15th Nov 2007
Lord Justice Laws ruled that Leather gloves with a padding of lead/sand over the knuckle area were capable in law of being an offensive weapon.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 123551.ece

HTH - Rufus.

Almost everything ( if not everything) is CAPABLE of being an offensive weapon. It depends on how it is used.

some things are deemed to be offensive per se ( ie have no lawful use) - eg flick knife, knuckle duster - not sure that the case you quote is actually saying anything more than item is capable of being offensive weapon rather than it is an offensive weapon

RufusA

spen666 wrote:

some things are deemed to be offensive per se ( ie have no lawful use) - eg flick knife, knuckle duster - not sure that the case you quote is actually saying anything more than item is capable of being offensive weapon rather than it is an offensive weapon

The law states that an offensive weapon is:

any article:
i) made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person,
or
ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him....

So ANYTHING is capable of being an offensive weapon. A hammer for example could fall under (ii) but not IMHO under (i) as it's not made or adapted for causing injury.

However this ruling was over a point of law as to whether such gloves fell in the "made or adapted"... category.

The arguments relate "construction of the gloves"...."together with the fact that they were advertised on the internet as self-defence gloves, was sufficient to establish that they were made or adapted for use as an offensive weapon."

All IMHO of course. However I am sure the crown would be happy to clarify in a court of law for anyone unsure.

Rufus.

spen666

RufusA wrote:

spen666 wrote:

some things are deemed to be offensive per se ( ie have no lawful use) - eg flick knife, knuckle duster - not sure that the case you quote is actually saying anything more than item is capable of being offensive weapon rather than it is an offensive weapon

The law states that an offensive weapon is:

any article:
i) made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person,
or
ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him....

So ANYTHING is capable of being an offensive weapon. A hammer for example could fall under (ii) but not IMHO under (i) as it's not made or adapted for causing injury.

However this ruling was over a point of law as to whether such gloves fell in the "made or adapted"... category.

The arguments relate "construction of the gloves"...."together with the fact that they were advertised on the internet as self-defence gloves, was sufficient to establish that they were made or adapted for use as an offensive weapon."

All IMHO of course. However I am sure the crown would be happy to clarify in a court of law for anyone unsure.

Rufus.

As I say the case adds nothing really. It is not really one that provides any precedent.

It was actually a Prosecution appeal against a "termination ruling" rather than anything else.

All it says is what everyone knew - that things are potentially capable of being offensive weapons.

In the case in question the lower court had ruled there was no case to answer - ie that the Prosecution had not shown the gloves were capable of being made for, intended for or adapted for use as an offensive weapon.

The appelate court did not say the gloves WERE an offensive weapon. To be honest, it is somewhat suprising to find the need for an appelate court ruling on an issue like this. I suspect there was more to this in the lower court than has been mentioned in the Times Law Report

Surf-Matt

I have a scar on my chest from being screwdrivered. Can't see them being called an offensive weapon? Although maybe they are if simply being carried under a coat in the street?

Anyway, it hurt at the time.

rhext

I never realised lawyers cycled to work. I thought they all had chauffeur-driven mercs!

spen666

Surf-Matt wrote:

I have a scar on my chest from being screwdrivered. Can't see them being called an offensive weapon? Although maybe they are if simply being carried under a coat in the street?

Anyway, it hurt at the time.

When it wasunfortunately used on you it became an offensive weapon as it was INTENDED (at that point) as an offensive weapon
Simply carrying it is much harder to prove it was an offensive weapon. How can you prove it is either:

a) Made for purpose of being an offensive weapon [ not here as it is made for driving screws]

b) Adapted for purpose of being an offensive weapon [unlikely as you have to show some sort of physical adaptation]

or

c) Intended for purpose of being an offensive weapon [ problem here is showing intent - remember Prosecution must prove it- it is not for defence to prove it wasn't intended. Being concealed under a coat proves very little - and probably tends in the absence of other evidence to show it was more than likely not intended as an offensive weapon

meanwhile

downfader wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

Also, to point out what should be really obvious, gloves loaded with lead shot count as a concealed weapon and may get you a criminal record if caught.

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

I.e. someone told you this on a forum, or the seller did.

If you have any specific info to the contrary please forward it to me.[/quote]

Gloves like this are well-known weapons; any copper who wants to will have no problems getting an offensive charge unless you have a clear special need for the type of protection these gloves offer. The lead shot in these gloves would be more likely to make cycling injuries worse rather than protect, so you'd be off to pokey.

A quick google found a forum for the Dibble (well, special constables):

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/ind ... opic=67620

A pair got brought into our Offensive Weapon class last week. Unless you have a very good reason (ie on a building site) you would be getting locked up in Merseyside for them.

Now, there were other opinions there - but these were amateur copper's own opinions and therefore worth bugger all. The policy of at least one force is to prosecute, and the wording makes it clear that this is a continuing policy, so prosecutions have been successful. Now, the guy selling the gloves posted in response claiming that the gloves were HO approved and that the Merseyside thing was just a few policeman... but that doesn't agree with the statement of the unbiased party and he didn't show any evidence of HO approval. If he has any such meaningful approval and doesn't document it on the site were he sells these, he's a moron. There was then talk of an appeal and things got awfully complicated...

Overall:

1. If carry these without a clear non-violent and *significant* reason, you're risking arrest. If you're willing to spend several years going through the appeals courts, you might not end up with a criminal record. Good luck mortgaging your house to pay for this in the current market.

2. If you ever hit anything or anyone with them, the police are going to start by assuming you're the party at fault and begin by prosecuting for carrying a weapon with intent. Or whatever the exact name of the charge is.

3. The sort of person who will carry a weapon like this without good reason (eg doorman, professional semi-criminal like an "evictions consultant" when they're working) won't have any idea of how to handle the adrenalin of a situation severe enough to need a weapon like this and will either be likely to provoke someone enough to get damaged himself (eg car lock to the side of th skull, run over) or punch someone hard enough to get a prison sentence. At which point he'll have to shower - naked! - with much scarier people than teenagers who shout at him when he's on his bike.

Another point to consider is that gloves of this kind are well known as weapons. However much a seller's ad may dance around the point to reduce his own legal exposure, if you're caught wearing sap gloves without a legitimate reason, then no group of twelve Daily Mail readers is going to have a problem finding you guilty.

meanwhile

spen666 wrote:

RufusA wrote:

downfader wrote:

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

Regina v R - 15th Nov 2007
Lord Justice Laws ruled that Leather gloves with a padding of lead/sand over the knuckle area were capable in law of being an offensive weapon.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 123551.ece

HTH - Rufus.

Almost everything ( if not everything) is CAPABLE of being an offensive weapon. It depends on how it is used.

some things are deemed to be offensive per se ( ie have no lawful use) - eg flick knife, knuckle duster - not sure that the case you quote is actually saying anything more than item is capable of being offensive weapon rather than it is an offensive weapon

It really comes down to the possibility of lawful use: you can carry a machete if you're a gardener, and you could probably carry these gloves if you have a need for the protection that they provide. Not a generic need which could be answered by wearing less weapony gloves, but a need which is specifically met by the presence of lead or steel shot.

meanwhile

meanwhile wrote:

downfader wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

Also, to point out what should be really obvious, gloves loaded with lead shot count as a concealed weapon and may get you a criminal record if caught.

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

I.e. someone told you this on a forum, or the seller did.

Ah:

Same Dibble-link as before:
EN388 simply refers to the mechanical resistance to cuts, abrasion and tearing. It like lots of other supposed 'endorsements/approvals' means absolutely nothing as far as the Prevention of Crime Act is concerned.

So the seller's claims of "Home Office approval" seem to be meaningless. If you need to take legal advice on a matter which might end with a criminal conviction, then a bouncer who sells sap gloves probably isn't the best choice you could make.

downfader

RufusA wrote:

downfader wrote:

That issue was looked into in some depth before purchase and it appears they are legal. Something to do with the shot being classed as padding rather than a 'duster (which is solid and usually in blockform)

Regina v R - 15th Nov 2007
Lord Justice Laws ruled that Leather gloves with a padding of lead/sand over the knuckle area were capable in law of being an offensive weapon.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 123551.ece

HTH - Rufus.

Cheers for the link Rufus! Having read that now I still feel the same way - its hand protection over any subversive risk (and you'd need a subversive to implement the risk). The gloves seem less "dangerous", somehow, that my old work colleages motorcycle gloves with kevlar strips and heavy padding. :? My old mate who left work this year had really heavy kevlar gloves, atleast 3 times heavier than the 8 ounces of the "Sap"

I'll pass the link on to my Bro. TBH I think this is something thats going to pop up again - as I have been told by these morotcyclists you can get the "Saps" from a few motorcycle shops.

BTW I left a comment on the Times page about a Copper friend of me Dads who once said the Pocket Rocket could be considered a "weapon" by some as its small and metal. He compared it to something like a kubatan (sorry I dont know the spelling :oops: ) He was ofcourse having a laugh but as spen666 said its all subjective I guess.

downfader

meanwhile wrote:

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=67620

Now, there were other opinions there - but these were amateur copper's own opinions and therefore worth bugger all. The policy of at least one force is to prosecute, and the wording makes it clear that this is a continuing policy, so prosecutions have been successful. Now, the guy selling the gloves posted in response claiming that the gloves were HO approved and that the Merseyside thing was just a few policeman... but that doesn't agree with the statement of the unbiased party and he didn't show any evidence of HO approval. If he has any such meaningful approval and doesn't document it on the site were he sells these, he's a moron. There was then talk of an appeal and things got awfully complicated...

Overall:

1. If carry these without a clear non-violent and *significant* reason, you're risking arrest. If you're willing to spend several years going through the appeals courts, you might not end up with a criminal record. Good luck mortgaging your house to pay for this in the current market.

2. If you ever hit anything or anyone with them, the police are going to start by assuming you're the party at fault and begin by prosecuting for carrying a weapon with intent. Or whatever the exact name of the charge is.

3. The sort of person who will carry a weapon like this without good reason (eg doorman, professional semi-criminal like an "evictions consultant" when they're working) won't have any idea of how to handle the adrenalin of a situation severe enough to need a weapon like this and will either be likely to provoke someone enough to get damaged himself (eg car lock to the side of th skull, run over) or punch someone hard enough to get a prison sentence. At which point he'll have to shower - naked! - with much scarier people than teenagers who shout at him when he's on his bike.

Another point to consider is that gloves of this kind are well known as weapons. However much a seller's ad may dance around the point to reduce his own legal exposure, if you're caught wearing sap gloves without a legitimate reason, then no group of twelve Daily Mail readers is going to have a problem finding you guilty.

Cheers for the link, have just read it. I dont know... it all seems too touchy now, its like with photography thesedays - you're either a peado or terrorist for carrying a camera to some police. I'll pass on that link too