Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..

[Angelfishsolo]

As I've said elsewhere.....

If plod stop me for not having pedal reflectors on the two of the fleet that don't currently have them, almost certainly never going to happen where I live, I won't plead ignorance. I won't try a smart arsed argument to show the law is an ass. I won't yeah but no but yeah but.... I'll take what is coming to me. After I've pointed at the multiple rear lights that I have fitted and lit up day and night on my bikes.

Not having pedal (or rear) reflectors is illegal. So is RLJ'ing. So is speeding. My two pet bugbears. Not having reflectors is a technical offence and one which does not put others at risk if, in other respects, your bike and bike riding is legal.

RLJ'ing is unexpected. Unexpected behaviour in a shared road space is inconsiderate, selfish, uncivilised and anti-social. All of which adds up to a big heap of stupid. So there you have it...

...RLJ'ing is stupid. Speeding is stupid. Both are stupid in a way, in a way far, far beyond, that stupid which having no pedal reflectors can ever be. Hence few rational folk give a monkey's about pedal reflectors.

 

[girovago]

Looked at it to pass my driving test and thats it. Stop at a stop sign etc Stop at a red light. etc etc...

That bit's in a section headed 'General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders'. First sentence under that heading reads, "This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders."

I didnt realise that all that stuff all applies to bikes as well ...

I don't believe you.

 

[Vikeonabike]

You can tell I was on holiday when this thread started! 25 Pages in and I haven't said anything yet. So let's start by bottoming out a few things. Firstly "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong", Well yes and know, fortunately Police officers aren ow being encouraged to use, discretion and common sense when it comes to dealing with offences. So yes riding with out pedal reflectors is against the law, however if the rest of your bike is lit up like a christmas tree, you've got ferlective panels on your shoes/tights/ trouser clips etc. Lets use a bit of common sense and ignore it and get on with something more important. However Mr RLJ, in rush hour comes flying through the lights he gets caught, he gets a ticket. Now at 3am on a deserted road when it's quite clear to all and sundry that there is nothing coming and the rider has done everything possible to make sure he is safe, I think a ticket may be a bit much. It's this common sense thing again! Secondly Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 deal specifically with Dangerous Cycling Offences and Cycling without due care and attention. Both are summons offences. Both could cover such offences as texting whilst cycling, ninja cycling, riding no handed on pavements. Pulling Wheelies on the road / in shopping centres etc. Most minor offences are not absolute and the officer dealing can and will use his/her discretion where appropriate. Please be aware that these offences are liable to use a final test to enable them to decide on a course of action. This test is called "The Attitude Test". To explain this, you have been stopped for an offence that is ticketable or summonable. Whether you get the ticket/summons may be down to your attitude towards said officer! <BR><BR>Thirdly. Ignorance is not an excuse!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You can tell I was on holiday when this thread started! 25 Pages in and I haven't said anything yet. So let's start by bottoming out a few things. Firstly "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong", Well yes and know, fortunately Police officers aren ow being encouraged to use, discretion and common sense when it comes to dealing with offences. So yes riding with out pedal reflectors is against the law, however if the rest of your bike is lit up like a christmas tree, you've got ferlective panels on your shoes/tights/ trouser clips etc. Lets use a bit of common sense and ignore it and get on with something more important. However Mr RLJ, in rush hour comes flying through the lights he gets caught, he gets a ticket. Now at 3am on a deserted road when it's quite clear to all and sundry that there is nothing coming and the rider has done everything possible to make sure he is safe, I think a ticket may be a bit much. It's this common sense thing again! Secondly Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 deal specifically with Dangerous Cycling Offences and Cycling without due care and attention. Both are summons offences. Both could cover such offences as texting whilst cycling, ninja cycling, riding no handed on pavements. Pulling Wheelies on the road / in shopping centres etc. Most minor offences are not absolute and the officer dealing can and will use his/her discretion where appropriate. Please be aware that these offences are liable to use a final test to enable them to decide on a course of action. This test is called "The Attitude Test". To explain this, you have been stopped for an offence that is ticketable or summonable. Whether you get the ticket/summons may be down to your attitude towards said officer! <BR><BR>Thirdly. Ignorance is not an excuse!

I have seen this test on several fly on the wall Police shows. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[subaqua]

I have seen this test on several fly on the wall Police shows. It makes a lot of sense.

damn right it does !

 

[apollo179]

You can tell I was on holiday when this thread started! 25 Pages in and I haven't said anything yet. So let's start by bottoming out a few things. Firstly "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong", Well yes and know, fortunately Police officers aren ow being encouraged to use, discretion and common sense when it comes to dealing with offences. So yes riding with out pedal reflectors is against the law, however if the rest of your bike is lit up like a christmas tree, you've got ferlective panels on your shoes/tights/ trouser clips etc. Lets use a bit of common sense and ignore it and get on with something more important. However Mr RLJ, in rush hour comes flying through the lights he gets caught, he gets a ticket. Now at 3am on a deserted road when it's quite clear to all and sundry that there is nothing coming and the rider has done everything possible to make sure he is safe, I think a ticket may be a bit much. It's this common sense thing again! Secondly Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 deal specifically with Dangerous Cycling Offences and Cycling without due care and attention. Both are summons offences. Both could cover such offences as texting whilst cycling, ninja cycling, riding no handed on pavements. Pulling Wheelies on the road / in shopping centres etc. Most minor offences are not absolute and the officer dealing can and will use his/her discretion where appropriate. Please be aware that these offences are liable to use a final test to enable them to decide on a course of action. This test is called "The Attitude Test". To explain this, you have been stopped for an offence that is ticketable or summonable. Whether you get the ticket/summons may be down to your attitude towards said officer! <BR><BR>Thirdly. Ignorance is not an excuse!

Yes i agree wholeheartedly.
Discretionary enforcement based on common sense is the right approach.
Not the "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong" approach.
Well said.

 

[apollo179]

Please answer the question you were asked Apollo.

The question being.
Why should it be ok for bicycles to rlj and not motorcycles ?
If you stick ridgidly to the idea that laws apply equally to all traffic then there can be no differentiation between the 2.
If you acknowledge that bicycles and motorcycles are inherantly different animals then you open the door for the possibility of differentiating between them re the law.
Simplistically you could argue motorcycles are big heavy and dangerous while bikes are small light and less dangerous.
The only valid point beyond your "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong" arguement that i can see for rljing being wrong is that it brings the law into disrepute and it publicly is seen to bring the law into disrepute.
It being against the law also gives ammunition to drivers predisposed to hate cyclists.
Make it a discretionary common sense "cycling without due care" type offence and you do away with the disrepute caused to the law and you disarm those inclined to hate cyclists.
If a cyclist cycles anti socially i would be the first to say punish him but rigid laws sometimes are not 100%.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The question being.
Why should it be ok for bicycles to rlj and not motorcycles ?
If you stick ridgidly to the idea that laws apply equally to all traffic then there can be no differentiation between the 2.
If you acknowledge that bicycles and motorcycles are inherantly different animals then you open the door for the possibility of differentiating between them re the law.
Simplistically you could argue motorcycles are big heavy and dangerous while bikes are small light and less dangerous.
The only valid point beyond your "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong" arguement that i can see for rljing being wrong is that it brings the law into disrepute and it publicly is seen to bring the law into disrepute.
It being against the law also gives ammunition to drivers predisposed to hate cyclists.
Make it a discretionary common sense "cycling without due care" type offence and you do away with the disrepute caused to the law and you disarm those inclined to hate cyclists.
If a cyclist cycles anti socially i would be the first to say punish him but rigid laws sometimes are not 100%.

You have totaly avoided the question. If a bicycle can run a red light "when safe to do so" then why not other road users?

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

Phew! All these acronyms are confusing...

 

[apollo179]

You have totaly avoided the question. If a bicycle can run a red light "when safe to do so" then why not other road users?

I do see your point but it boils down to what i said above that it depends if you are willing to accept (re - traffic) that bicycles are a different kettle of fish from other traffic.
If you do accept that bicycles are different from other traffic then that allows for the possibility of having laws specific for them.

 

[apollo179]

Phew! All these acronyms are confusing...

Agreed JTW

 

[gaz]

I do see your point but it boils down to what i said above that it depends if you are willing to accept (re - traffic) that bicycles are a different kettle of fish from other traffic.
If you do accept that bicycles are different from other traffic then that allows for the possibility of having laws specific for them.

In what way do you think they are different? And in what way do those differences make you believe that bicycles should follow different road rules to everyone else?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I do see your point but it boils down to what i said above that it depends if you are willing to accept (re - traffic) that bicycles are a different kettle of fish from other traffic.
If you do accept that bicycles are different from other traffic then that allows for the possibility of having laws specific for them.

So you are of the belief that bicycles are a special case I take it. Can you explain why?

 

[apollo179]

In what way do you think they are different? And in what way do those differences make you believe that bicycles should follow different road rules to everyone else?

Reply to qaz and afs - i will have a think about it and get back to you.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Reply to qaz and afs - i will have a think about it and get back to you.

Will await with interest.