Police Vs Cyclist

matttye

Herzlos wrote: »

"sort of?"

Cycles aren't exempt from 'the Act' as RS2000 said because some of the offences contained within the Act relate to cycles, but they are exempt from s164.

You will note that the powers in s164 relate to drivers / suspected drivers / supervisors of people who drive motor vehicles. A cycle is not a motor vehicle.

Herzlos

RS2000. wrote: »

You don't agree, so how about backing up your statement where you said ID is required as part of the process?

You said "sort of" which sounds like even you're not sure. You've essentially said they aren't explictly covered so that means they kinda don't apply.

Section 168 of the 1988 RTA linked on the previous page is pretty clear though:

Failure to give, or giving false, name and address in case of reckless or careless or inconsiderate driving or cycling.

You'll note, though, that I never said providing ID was required, but failing to give details or giving false details is an offense. And one which is cleared up much more easily with ID. So whilst no ID is required, it's a pragmatic approach. If the cyclist in this case wasn't being an armchair lawyer simply stating his name and address would probably be sufficient.

Obviously cyclist don't need to provide a license under s. 164 as they aren't licensed, but s. 168 still requires them to identify themselves.

Expecting any non-traffic officer to be able to quote acts is a bit much though; they can enforce the law without being able to recite it verbatim (and they'll know the wording of most of it). There's a difference between knowing something is legal and being able to give all the details from memory.

ceredigion

Either way if the cyclist was any good, the copper would never of caught up.

matttye

Herzlos wrote: »

You said "sort of" which sounds like even you're not sure. You've essentially said they aren't explictly covered so that means they kinda don't apply.

Section 168 of the 1988 RTA linked on the previous page is pretty clear though:

You'll note, though, that I never said providing ID was required, but failing to give details or giving false details is an offense. And one which is cleared up much more easily with ID. So whilst no ID is required, it's a pragmatic approach. If the cyclist in this case wasn't being an armchair lawyer simply stating his name and address would probably be sufficient.

Obviously cyclist don't need to provide a license under s. 164 as they aren't licensed, but s. 168 still requires them to identify themselves.

Expecting any non-traffic officer to be able to quote acts is a bit much though; they can enforce the law without being able to recite it verbatim (and they'll know the wording of most of it). There's a difference between knowing something is legal and being able to give all the details from memory.

I agree. I said that from the beginning. I always carry ID unless I'm out running as I never know when I'll need it.

The other benefit is that if the officer looks like he's going to arrest you because he doubts your name or address, you can back it up with ID.

Michael Mouse or Micky Mouse should always carry ID. :rotfl:

And that's right, police don't have to know the law. You'd be surprised how many bring a crib sheet with the 'points to prove' into interviews so they know what questions to ask. Some of them don't seem to understand when they've asked enough questions to prove the offence and they just go on and on.

RS2000.

Herzlos wrote: »

You said "sort of" which sounds like even you're not sure. You've essentially said they aren't explictly covered so that means they kinda don't apply.

Section 168 of the 1988 RTA linked on the previous page is pretty clear though:

You'll note, though, that I never said providing ID was required, but failing to give details or giving false details is an offense. And one which is cleared up much more easily with ID. So whilst no ID is required, it's a pragmatic approach. If the cyclist in this case wasn't being an armchair lawyer simply stating his name and address would probably be sufficient.

Obviously cyclist don't need to provide a license under s. 164 as they aren't licensed, but s. 168 still requires them to identify themselves.

Expecting any non-traffic officer to be able to quote acts is a bit much though; they can enforce the law without being able to recite it verbatim (and they'll know the wording of most of it). There's a difference between knowing something is legal and being able to give all the details from memory.

Did you not say?

Herzlos wrote: »

It's required as part of processing the breach of the RTA, regarding red lights.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

I agree. I said that from the beginning. I always carry ID unless I'm out running as I never know when I'll need it.

The other benefit is that if the officer looks like he's going to arrest you because he doubts your name or address, you can back it up with ID.

Michael Mouse or Micky Mouse should always carry ID. :rotfl:Why?

And that's right, police don't have to know the law. You'd be surprised how many bring a crib sheet with the 'points to prove' into interviews so they know what questions to ask. Some of them don't seem to understand when they've asked enough questions to prove the offence and they just go on and on.

Where as legal advisor know it all.

Speaking about identity I met one who didn't know Section 25 of PACE.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

Where as legal advisor know it all.

Speaking about identity I met one who didn't know Section 25 of PACE.

Nope, no one will ever even be close to knowing the law in its entirety.

I had to Google s.25 PACE. Like I said earlier, it was before my time. It's now repealed so I don't need to know!

Herzlos

Your grasping at straws now.

I meant that identifying the cyclist is part of processing the breach, not requiring an ID specifically. Apologies if that wasn't clear enough.

ID is just pragmatic, and I always carry mine too because it's whole lot easier than going through that farce, or getting a producer, or having to put my beer back.

RS2000.

Herzlos wrote: »

Your grasping at straws now.

I meant that identifying the cyclist is part of processing the breach, not requiring an ID specifically. Apologies if that wasn't clear enough.

ID is just pragmatic, and I always carry mine too because it's whole lot easier than going through that farce, or getting a producer, or having to put my beer back.

How does ID prevent a producer then?

You've either got a licence, insurance and mot or you haven't. If they're not on the database ID won't help you.

Cornucopia

Okay, so are we now in a position to point out the errors/principles in the video?

- 0:21 Yes, the cyclist has a right to silence. The PC's response was somewhat aggressive. However, being silent means being silent.

- 1:17 The cyclist can refuse the fixed penalty paperwork. The PC is correct to question how he will pay the FP without it (and I guess was getting at whether the cyclist was refusing to accept a FP).

- 1:56 The cyclist does need to provide his details. IDCOPPLAN is, as the video caption says, merely a police mnemonic, however it summarises the relevant law.

- 2:08 First mention by the PC of documents. Bad move.

After that it all falls apart a bit because the Cyclist doesn't know what he's talking about, and the PC is basically right, but expressing himself very poorly.

-3:00 "Lie Number 3" regarding knowing the exact law is not a lie.


There's a longer version here, which suggests that the cyclist rode away and was not pursued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7BQvt3XeAY