Where are your lights?

ChrisSA

It amazes me that some people insist of wearing the darkest clothes they can find to cycle down the darkest roads they can find, without lights.

Darwinism at its best.

hammerite

Are you watching the traffic cops programme on BBC1? No lights and running a red light. The guy getting nicked is a right knob!

hammerite

Ouch. Cost him £700 fine, and £215 in costs! All because he decided to argue the toss, and the court decided to make an example of him.

polocini

Yet if you drive illegally with no licence, no insurance, no mot, no tax, your kids unbelted and then lie to the police about who you are. It's three points and a forty pound fine.

I cannot believe that the old bill threw the book at the cyclist but 'precious/primrose' got off lightly.

AL

SteveR_100Milers

I just saw that too. By the grace of god and all that.... :oops:

I liked the comments of "as an example to the Lycra louts" how very dare they associate cycling proles with elites like us...

pidism

The cyclist was a total Tosser! :x

He deserved locking up. I think the cops were rather patient. He not only put himself at risk but could have caused an innocent motorist to collide with him. This would cause the motorist unecesary suffering and possible prosecution.
All it takes is £10 to make yourself 'Legal' with lighting. One front and rear. Then you are at least complying with the law.

The cyclist was also drunk and decides to tell the Police how to do their job. I would imagine his legal training is minimal.
The place to argue the toss is a court room, not the road side. Treat Police with respect and they will return it, you dont have to like their decision. This is why the UK has the legal system it does. Everyone has the right to fair trial.

ChrisSA

I did see the traffic cops, which reminded me about the idiot I saw this evening. The pissed cyclist arguing was hilarious.

freehub

About twice when I've been on my way home back in Yorkshire I was riding into the village, absolutely pitch black, no moon light, and in the distance I could see these 2 shiny things going up and down, turned out it was a cyclist in all black, no lights!

cycologist

Polocini wrote:

Yet if you drive illegally with no licence, no insurance, no mot, no tax, your kids unbelted and then lie to the police about who you are. It's three points and a forty pound fine.

I cannot believe that the old bill threw the book at the cyclist but 'precious/primrose' got off lightly.

AL

Ye gods ! This was on in the kitchen whilst I was cooking and I didn't watch too closely until I heard the outcomes at the end. He may well have been putting himself at risk ( that is up to him) but what about the pratts who were putting everyone at risk (including their own children) who didn't have a say in the matter. The magistrates decision made my blood boil nearly as much as the gravy in the pan.

hsukak

They're everywhere, those fxxxers.
Up Romford Road in London is a nightmare and and half.
Like ninja's, they're at it full pelt, winding and weaving through traffic, dressed in all black, no lights, no reflectors, no helmet, no high-vis, no sense.
One day, it'll be no life.

northernneil

i dont really think he could have been described as a dedicated 'cyclist' in the same sense as some one running for a bus could be described as a 'runner'

i suspect people who regularly use a bike for transportation do have the correct and legal setups, but there are sh!tloads of people out there who dont bother cos they use thier bike once a month or so.

I use my bike to go to the pub all the time though ... and always take it steady coming back

spen666

northernneil wrote:

i dont really think he could have been described as a dedicated 'cyclist' in the same sense as some one running for a bus could be described as a 'runner'

i suspect people who regularly use a bike for transportation do have the correct and legal setups, but there are sh!tloads of people out there who dont bother cos they use thier bike once a month or so.

I use my bike to go to the pub all the time though ... and always take it steady coming back

come to London town and be re appraised

bam49

cycologist wrote:

Polocini wrote:

Yet if you drive illegally with no licence, no insurance, no mot, no tax, your kids unbelted and then lie to the police about who you are. It's three points and a forty pound fine.

I cannot believe that the old bill threw the book at the cyclist but 'precious/primrose' got off lightly.

AL

Ye gods ! This was on in the kitchen whilst I was cooking and I didn't watch too closely until I heard the outcomes at the end. He may well have been putting himself at risk ( that is up to him) but what about the pratts who were putting everyone at risk (including their own children) who didn't have a say in the matter. The magistrates decision made my blood boil nearly as much as the gravy in the pan.

++! I saw that and thought the same - although it could be argued that guy in Brighton was a bit of a prat , he was a danger mainly to himself .. I could not believe that £ 40 quid fine & just 3 points, I thought that was outrageous .... Some 20 odd years ago I got £100 fine & 3 points for riding my m/cycle with just one hand on the bars / grips... I hate magistrates courts as there is no consistency at all...

plowmar

Don't forget that precious's costs come later. Insurance, new car as old one usually scrapped, public transport/taxi for her and her kids, etc..

He still has his bike and wont lose it even if he doesn't pay a fine and bike insurance if bought doesn't relate to fines etc., and don't forget he lied to police saying he had lights but they had fallen off.

She would have got a lot worse if the 'biker's' offences had been hers, RLJ, pavement, no working lights and drinking as well as the others.

As a cyclist it was more than embarrassing as we will all be tarred with same brush, in some peoples eyes.

Personally I agree with courts action he deserved to be made an example of, especially as he could have got away with nothing/slap on the wrist if he'd kept his lip buttoned.

keef66

The bit that made me laugh was when one of the coppers had to take a moment out from arguing with the 'cyclist' to flag down the car that was driving past with no lights on. They drive away after a friendly word from plod, then it's back to the argument with the knobhead who continued to talk himself into a court appearance which cost him nearly a grand :shock: .

So who'd have been in the wrong if Primrose / Precious had been coming the other way and taken him out as he wobbled through the red light??

simonc2806

all he had to do was hold his hands up and admit to doing wrong and he would of got a fixed penatly fine. he was offered this but he had to argue and refuse what a idiot he deserved all he got.

hammerite

simonc2806 wrote:

all he had to do was hold his hands up and admit to doing wrong and he would have got a fixed penatly fine. he was offered this but he had to argue and refuse what a idiot he deserved all he got.

If he'd have started with "sorry office, didn't realise, won't do it again", he'd not even have got a fixed penalty fine. It was only when he started getting clever and arguing the toss that they gave him the choice of a court appearance or fixed penalty. I bet he feels a bit silly about it all now!!

The funny bit was when the policeman said "he asked us whether we had anything better to do, and in all honesty right at that very time we didn't!"

JohnKempStarley

I must say that I think the £700 plus costs was wholly unjust. The chap certainly deserved punishment for the offences and generally an agressive attitude but I feel the punishment did not reflect the crime. If you watch traffic cops you find at the end of the program the punishments metered out are totally inconsistent and in many case unjust. The woman "precious" ( obviously doesn't think her kids are ) spoke in zimbabwean on the phone so the policeman could not understand , if someone inteprets what she said from the video it would be interesting to see if she was trying to deceive by getting her story correct to the other party. I personally feel strongly about wearing high-vis at night and in daytime as well as ample reflectors and lights. I use the lights at twilight,darkness and on days of poor visibility. I think we owe to ourselves and also other road users to help us be seen and for small cost.

gkerr4

I agree ^ I can't condone not using lights (although I am guilty of a few rapha items which aren't exactly hi-viz) - but £700 + costs is a horrendous punishment to be dishing out. You wouldn't get that fpr driving without insurance in a car let alone no-lights on a bike.

I didn't see the programme - but how exactly did the traffic cops stop him? was it an urban environment? i'd have thought you could easily leave a traffic car behind on a bike surely? I'm amazed he even stopped!

polocini

Keef66-I had forgotten all about the car with no lights on. At the time I said to my Mrs I bet the driver of that car was drunk and couldn't believe their luck!!!!!!!!!

AL

ChrisSA

northernneil wrote:

I suspect people who regularly use a bike for transportation do have the correct and legal setups, but there are sh!tloads of people out there who dont bother cos they use thier bike once a month or so.

Not the guy I saw. He was definitely in the regular cyclist camp.

JohnKempStarley

In reply to Gkerr4 the cyclist was in an urban area and the traffic police just happened upon him as he was cycling along and went through a red light. They asked him to stop but he was sort of refusing until eventually he did and became a barrack room lawyer telling the police their job ( though I'm sure some need reminding I've certainly encountered good and very bad ). The police were saying he was drunk but having television not smellyvision I could not verify that, certainly no slurred speech and was pretty stable in an upright position and on bike. All in all they seemed to do him for no lights, jumping a red light and cycling on a footpath. Worth looking on BBC i-player to see what yourself and any others think. I think £100 fine plus an education course of some form and maybe doing community work for a cycling organisation. I think all the court has achieved is to make someone hate the police, authorities etc even more than at the start. Well lets hope he's turned a new leaf and is reading this forum. I'm certainly not on his side but definitely seems to have been treated deferentially to the "no insurance,no tax, no license" motorists.
Actually on a lighter note, the Rapha kit I've seen looks top notch but I'm an altura miser . Which seems to be pretty good value for money if not as stylish. Suppose wearing expensive kit makes you doubly cautious not to fall off! I must invest .

batch78

Yes it was a harsh penalty, I actually spat drink over myself during the round up, but with hindsight he deserved it. As he approached the red light he looked over his shoulder, any half sensible person would have stopped, explained the situation if lights had gone awry or apologised and walked if not. He continued through said light, hopped onto pavement then proceeded with a completely foolhardy campaign of utter nonsense when stopped.

Why not make an example of such a prick?

If he now hates the police, especially after watching that back, more fool him.

Sgt_Pepper

whilst the police talked to Primrose, did anyone see the very old guy on his bike pedal past in the road, with no lights and all his shopping hanging from the bars, he had big Chopper style bars too. made me lol.

Ollieda

I can't be the only one who spotted that he had a wet patch around his crotch and down one leg? I like how he dropped the odd long word or two into his defense to make him sound a bit more in control and educated!