A Legal Query

mark1984

erm... because he may be colourblind???

Red Rock

Only emergency vehicles are permitted to use or be fitted with blue flashing lights and only Police vehicles are permitted to have static blue lights.

See link http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/information/bluelightuse.htm

spen666

cee wrote:

hey spen...

I'd have said the Vehicle Lighting regulations regarding blue light use on emergency vehicles, particularly the section on what constitues an emergency vehicle....

You make an interesting point on attached to the person...not the vehicle....

I am sure this can be argued both ways.....

for instance....say I have a red rear light as normal....but don't have it attached to my bike, but my rucksack instead....

It could feasibly be argued that by the letter, I did not have a rear red light fitted.....I would however hope that any one involved in the decision on the case would have the common sense to throw it out, because the light is displayed as if attached to the vehicle....

[/quote[] I am aware of riders who have been stopped and convicted for not having a light fixed in such circumstances.

They however chose to pay a fixed penalty ticket instead of fighting the same in court.

I am sure the CPS would not run a trial if the cyclist had made an attempt to comply in the way you describe

I guess the same argument could be made for the blue.

My best guess is.....you'd need a rockstar lawyer and an in-pocket decision maker(s) to get away with the blue light even if its attached to the person.....

(Hmmmm..what about those trainers with the blue lights in the soles.....would they break the rules if I cycled at night with them on??)

Academically...is probably a very interesting discussion for lawyers....
Pragmatically...I would be doubtful of winning with the on the person arguement.

I would be very confident of winning the on person argument. I have not had a chance to run it however. Anyone fancy being a test case

The Prosecutor has to prove the offence. How can he prove the offence when the regulations appear only to talk about lights attached to the bike. The light on the person is not attached to the bike, it is attached to a person.

Ergo - the offence is not made out. Remembering the defendant does not have to prove he is innocent

spen666

duplicate post

spen666

cee wrote:

hey spen...

I'd have said the Vehicle Lighting regulations regarding blue light use on emergency vehicles, particularly the section on what constitues an emergency vehicle....

You make an interesting point on attached to the person...not the vehicle....

I am sure this can be argued both ways.....

for instance....say I have a red rear light as normal....but don't have it attached to my bike, but my rucksack instead....

It could feasibly be argued that by the letter, I did not have a rear red light fitted.....I would however hope that any one involved in the decision on the case would have the common sense to throw it out, because the light is displayed as if attached to the vehicle....

I am aware of riders who have been stopped and convicted for not having a light fixed in such circumstances.

They however chose to pay a fixed penalty ticket instead of fighting the same in court.

I am sure the CPS would not run a trial if the cyclist had made an attempt to comply in the way you describe

I guess the same argument could be made for the blue.

My best guess is.....you'd need a rockstar lawyer and an in-pocket decision maker(s) to get away with the blue light even if its attached to the person.....

(Hmmmm..what about those trainers with the blue lights in the soles.....would they break the rules if I cycled at night with them on??)

Academically...is probably a very interesting discussion for lawyers....
Pragmatically...I would be doubtful of winning with the on the person arguement.

I would be very confident of winning the on person argument. I have not had a chance to run it however. Anyone fancy being a test case

The Prosecutor has to prove the offence. How can he prove the offence when the regulations appear only to talk about lights attached to the bike. The light on the person is not attached to the bike, it is attached to a person.

Ergo - the offence is not made out. Remembering the defendant does not have to prove he is innocent

spen666

MatHammond wrote:

Spen:

1) What I meant above was that the police are likely to be inclined to stop you if you have a blue light. They won't give a damn whether its "technically" allowed or not and you'll look a right tit getting into an argument with them about it. Why bother?

You could make the same argument about anything.

Walking down the street, standing at a bus stop etc.

Why bother, because if you don't defend your freedom, you lose them (in effect)

Why allow the police to prevent you doing something that is lawful?

I would quite happilly argue for the protection of rights I know exist. If the police disagree, they can arrest me. I will happily accept the compensation for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.

The police are NOT the arbitrators of what is lawful or not.(thankfully). Just because a police officer says the law is X, doesn't mean that is right.

2) The chap above with the dangerous driving anecdote - he appears to have confused "charged" with "convicted", but the point is still clear - no need to be such a pedant!

There is a million miles of difference between being charged and being convicted of something.

If it is a pedantic approach to think that, then I and everyone in the criminal justice system are pedants. See my point above about the police and what the law is.

All I said in response to Clint Eastwood's post is it wasn't the full story, and your response agrees with that. Strange how you confirm what I say, but attqack me as a pedant for saying it.