police and bikes
Comments
-
marcusjb wrote:Though this is drifting off topic - you CAN be fined for speeding on a bike in Richmond Park (and other Royal Parks). They are one of the very few places where a special bye-law exists and the speed limit does apply to cyclists.
Sure you can try argue that you don't have to have a speedo on a bike, but argue too strongly and they'll probably be more likely to fine you.
Would that be the bye law posted about 3 posts ago that says the speed limit only applies to motor vehicles??
0 -
Still amazes me the way some cyclists think they are above the law (and getting sensible cyclists a bad name)!!!
Riding on the pavement is an offence - simple as that and can carry a fine of up to £500 (so a FPN of £30 is getting off lightly - never mind just a lecture!!)
Riding through a red light is also an offence - probably covered under "Careless Cycling" with a maximum £1,000 fine.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29
Dangerous cycling carries a max £2,500 fine so before the OP decides to make himself out as the victim of an over-zealous cop - maybe he should be thankful that the cop probably didnt know the exact legislation and throw the book at him and have him up in court!! No penalty points on driving licence though as far as i'm aware.
I think there should be a new law against "Cycling like a complete and utter tw&t" that carries a confiscation of the bike and a forum name n shame punishment!!:D[/url] 0 -
was it last week that a police inspector went berserk and murdered or should i say slaughtered most of his family , then killed himself , dont these people under go some sort of psychcological evaluations from time to time ? obviously not , going on the out of control tantrum that the lunatic who pulled me over threw ,
useing his patrol car to attemp to drive a cyclist off the road is not what i would call responsible and mature adult behaviour , nor was his self control after words,
they may wear uniforms but the fact is that a lot of the problems in our society stems from the attitude thay have towards people and their attitude comes from being able to wear that uniform0 -
reacher wrote:they may wear uniforms but the fact is that a lot of the problems in our society stems from the attitude thay have ....
Holy moly what tosh. A lot of problems in society come from people that have no respect for others or the laws that prevent our society from descending into anarchy.
As for the rest of your post, I think you have issues with the Police outwith the context of this thread tbh.0 -
When you post on this forum do not be surprised when people remember your O P, or read it again. where you admitted to a catalogue of errors. To then revive this thread to have another bash at Her Majesty's Constabulary says more about you than it does about the Police
The older I get the faster I was0 -
Hiya, maybe i can help clarify
You cant get points on your driving licence from road traffic offences commited on a bicycle.
Maybe the officer was trying to impress upon you that if you were in a car then these would have been the offences you would have committed and then you would have got points.
However,
Not abiding by an instruction given by a police officer in uniform is an offence - failing to stop. This is an offence that comes with a fine and up to 6 months in prison (severe cases). This offence is the only justification an officer needs to make your day shitty.
Riding on the pavement is also an offence £30 fine, this offence also provides a pcso and constable the power to stop you, failing to stop again is an offence.
Other offences you committed under Road traffic act 1988
Sec 28 dangerous cycling
Sec 29 Cycling without due care and attention
And finally sec 31 - Racing without authorisation - i.e taking part in a speed trial without authorisation - mainly used to prevent traffic obstruction or prevent danger to and from traffic.
So yup, there is a lot you could get in trouble for but you would end up in court with fines, costs and in extreme circs a sentance of up to 6 months.
So you got off with a good bollocking, better then court? Maybe taking notice wont hurt, lets hope you dont ride the red lights and get flattened by a truck which covers the road with your brains as that pc may end up first on scene and have to then have to tell your nexk of kin you are dead!! Not a nice job at all my friend,
Lesson to us all, ride sensibly, bike vs car = carMTB Trek 4300 Disc 1999
Road Rose Carbon Pro RS Custom
Canyon Spectral AL 7.9 29er0 -
As an officer in the MET i will say this. Any cyclist idiotic or foolish enough to jump a red or use a pavement in an officers / police cars presence is at the mercy of the officer. It is extremely rare for any tickets to be issued as unfortunately we spend our time dealing with more pressing matters, however, some stern words of advice & a public bollocking usually satisfies in this scenario. However, any cyclist stupid or brave enough to argue the toss will immediately fail what we refer to as the 'attitude test' & may end up with above mentioned tickets.
As a cyclist it really angers & frustrates me that so many fellow cyclists appear to think they are immune from Road Traffic regulations & that for some reason the Highway Code does not apply to them. I make a point of offering some salient words of advice to these people & this gives me great satifaction - especially when it is someone who should really know better!
Having no lights is another bug of mine. Its's not rocket science, it's dark, get some lights & don't wear all black. Otherwise we make people get off & walk. These mindless fools are not only endangering themselves (their choice), but also lives of other road users (not their choice).
So anyone with the temerity to suggest we are wasting time or being a bit off or such like, please think again. You know the law, abide by it! Especially if a police car is parked aside you at the lights!!!0 -
He digs up a thread to make himself look silly all over again. 0
-
He digs up a thread and uses a massive tragedy to try and justify his petty upset because he got a earful for breaking the law.Stewie Griffin wrote:He digs up a thread to make himself look silly all over again.
Or maybe he is just trolling after all?0 -
attitude test !!!!!!!!!!!!
the only attitude i saw was from the bloke who used his panda car as a battering ram to run me off the road , they teach you that in the met do they ?
seems like the lunatics are running the asylum to me ,0 -
Everyone is posting in a troll thread.0
-
I held up a bank the other day* - and couldn't believe it when I got chased by the police..! Seriously, have they got nothing better to do...?!
* - this didn't really happen0 -
Bloody hell guys...obvious troll is obvious...stop feeding him.0
-
Reacher, out for a training ride last summer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgXpNqT2kJE0
-
ooermissus wrote:Obvious troll, trolling.
I certainly hope so otherwise there appears to be a complete moron riding on the roads near me! :shock:0 -
Really ?!?!?
Reacher, you're either a t*t of the highest order, or a Troll. Whichever you choose, neither are a good thing.
:roll:Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
MattC59 wrote:Really ?!?!?
Reacher, you're either a t*t of the highest order, or a Troll. Whichever you choose, neither are a good thing.
:roll:
Not clever enough to be a troll, he is an utter bosom of the highest order.0 -
Great thread some guys on here must have had a sense of humour bypass !! 0
-
marcusjb wrote:Man, if I was a copper I reckon I would have nicked you if you started trying to give excuses like that. And the fact that you disobeyed his first request to stop.
I think you should count yourself lucky that you got off with just a warning.
Quite the contary, aren't you allow to tell coppers to 'F-off' these days?'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'0 -
Certainly not!!!!!
If someone told me to f off i'd have them in bracelets (cuffs) in seconds!!
Go & try it, you'll see what happens.0 -
given that swearing at a police officer isn't an offence, can you explain why? or maybe ask for some training?nunowoolmez wrote:Certainly not!!!!!
If someone told me to f off i'd have them in bracelets (cuffs) in seconds!!
Go & try it, you'll see what happens.0 -
avoidingmyphd wrote:
given that swearing at a police officer isn't an offence, can you explain why? or maybe ask for some training?nunowoolmez wrote:Certainly not!!!!!
If someone told me to f off i'd have them in bracelets (cuffs) in seconds!!
Go & try it, you'll see what happens.
Are you really that stupid ?Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
no I'm not stupid. Nunowoolmez has previously said that he's a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police. He can only arrest people when the law has given him the power do so. I asked him what makes him think that he has the power to arrest people simply for for swearing at him. I could be wrong, but I dont think he has that power, so he just boasted in a public forum of his lack of understanding about his own legal powers and threatened to abuse them. I simply asked him to correct me if I'm wrong. You waded in with an insult.
You might be resigned to that kind of behaviour by the police (and with good reason, he's hardly the only police officer with that attitude). I'm not.0 -
Swearing or being abusive at anyone is assault, for which you can be arrested.
It's not resigning myself to that kind of Police behaviour, nor from his comments, does Nunowoolmez have a lack of understanding of his own legal powers, is threatening to abuse them or requires training.
It can also be constrewed as disturbing the peace, again, for which you can be arrested.
I refer you to my previous comment.
ps. it wasn't an insult, merely a question, as your previous answer left your level of intelligence somewhat debatable.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
A judge confirmed that it was acceptable to speak to the police in that manner just a couple of weeks back. I'm pretty sure that swearing at anyone in public can lead to arrest under some public order charge though.0
-
Pross wrote:A judge confirmed that it was acceptable to speak to the police in that manner just a couple of weeks back. I'm pretty sure that swearing at anyone in public can lead to arrest under some public order charge though.
It may be deemed acceptable by that judge, but that judge isn't omnipresent so therefore isnt' the one making the decision at the time. So, a policeman is perfectly within his/her rights to arrest someone if he/she deems it appropriate, even if they are then released with out charge.
Personally, if you're stupid enough and don't have the decency to be civil, then you deserve to be arrested.
If I was to tell a Policeman to f*ck off, I'd expect a warning and if I continued, then to be arrested.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
The amount of douches on this thread is unbelievable.
This is how you deal with the Police........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY27OM_-7oESanta Cruz Blur XC
Nicolai Helius FR
Planet X Carbon RED0 -
MattC59 wrote:Pross wrote:A judge confirmed that it was acceptable to speak to the police in that manner just a couple of weeks back. I'm pretty sure that swearing at anyone in public can lead to arrest under some public order charge though.
It may be deemed acceptable by that judge, but that judge isn't omnipresent so therefore isnt' the one making the decision at the time. So, a policeman is perfectly within his/her rights to arrest someone if he/she deems it appropriate, even if they are then released with out charge.
Personally, if you're stupid enough and don't have the decency to be civil, then you deserve to be arrested.
If I was to tell a Policeman to f*ck off, I'd expect a warning and if I continued, then to be arrested.
He may not be omnipresent but he has set a legal precedent so we can now all safely swear at any rozzers if we want. Unfortunately my smilies no longer work since the forum 'upgrade' so the wink was missing from the above post. Looks like I'll have to go back to the old-fashioned ways
0 -
Pross wrote:MattC59 wrote:Pross wrote:A judge confirmed that it was acceptable to speak to the police in that manner just a couple of weeks back. I'm pretty sure that swearing at anyone in public can lead to arrest under some public order charge though.
It may be deemed acceptable by that judge, but that judge isn't omnipresent so therefore isnt' the one making the decision at the time. So, a policeman is perfectly within his/her rights to arrest someone if he/she deems it appropriate, even if they are then released with out charge.
Personally, if you're stupid enough and don't have the decency to be civil, then you deserve to be arrested.
If I was to tell a Policeman to f*ck off, I'd expect a warning and if I continued, then to be arrested.
He may not be omnipresent but he has set a legal precedent so we can now all safely swear at any rozzers if we want. Unfortunately my smilies no longer work since the forum 'upgrade' so the wink was missing from the above post. Looks like I'll have to go back to the old-fashioned ways
Pross: No, that case was (unsuprisingly) misrepresented by the media.Earlier this week a number of news outlets reported a High Court ruling which upheld the appeal of a man who was convicted after he used the F-word several times when stopped by police officers.
The judgment was heralded as a view that swearing at police officers was all right in the eyes of the law.
However.....
So there was no evidence any distress was caused. Therefore no evidence of an offence.To be convicted, it would have had to have been proven "that the defendant used threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of someone else who was caused or was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by hearing them."
The judgment argues this was not proven, but not because the Police don't have feelings, but, because it seems there is no oral evidence from those involved that harassment alarm or distress was caused
http://fullfact.org/blog/swearing_polic ... ision-3150
Looks like you and alwaystoohot shouldn't beleive everything you read in the papers.0
