Police Vs Cyclist

no1catman

The cyclist was trying to be a smart a*** - when asked for 'documentation' - why is his mode of transport relevant as per his 'but I'm on a bike'!?
Didn't he have a wallet on him, I'd feel 'undressed' if I didn't have one with me when I went out.


I couldn't be bothered to view it all - with such a pretentious 'know it all' - did he get taken to the Police station?

RS2000.

no1catman wrote: »

The cyclist was trying to be a smart a*** - when asked for 'documentation' - why is his mode of transport relevant as per his 'but I'm on a bike'!?
Didn't he have a wallet on him, I'd feel 'undressed' if I didn't have one with me when I went out.


I couldn't be bothered to view it all - with such a pretentious 'know it all' - did he get taken to the Police station?

Because there is no legal requirement to produce documentation when riding a bike.

no1catman

RS2000. wrote: »

Because there is no legal requirement to produce documentation when riding a bike.

But if he has committed an offence - running a red light, then he'll need to provide some form of identity. A pedestrian may be asked for id - it's irrelevant what the mode of transport is. If the guy's attitude had been better, then the Policeman would have accepted the details given. It's just bizarre that the guy who to the length of having a helmetcam himself doesn't know a Red Light means STOP

RS2000.

no1catman wrote: »

But if he has committed an offence - running a red light, then he'll need to provide some form of identity. A pedestrian may be asked for id true but they don't have to produce any- it's irrelevant what the mode of transport is. If the guy's attitude had been better, then the Policeman would have accepted the details given. It's just bizarre that the guy who to the length of having a helmetcam himself doesn't know a Red Light means STOP

According to what legislation?

matttye

Guest101 wrote: »

You dont have to say anything. - The police even tell you this.

They make it clear.

So why say anything. Write down your name, DOB and address on a piece of paper, hand it to the officer and stay quiet.

You're perfectly entitled to do that but could just as easily tell him those things then refuse to answer any other questions.

Just remember that some police powers are discretionary, so if the officer likes your attitude you may not end up with a ticket at all but just words of advice. If you've been caught bang to rights there's no harm in saying sorry.

Guest101

matttye wrote: »

You're perfectly entitled to do that but could just as easily tell him those things then refuse to answer any other questions.

Just remember that some police powers are discretionary, so if the officer likes your attitude you may not end up with a ticket at all but just words of advice. If you've been caught bang to rights there's no harm in saying sorry.

This is not good practice. When they say it may harm your defence... Etc.

It's because the court will wonder why you were willing to answer some questions, but not others.

Better to either be upfront, or silent. Not both.

matttye

no1catman wrote: »

But if he has committed an offence - running a red light, then he'll need to provide some form of identity. A pedestrian may be asked for id - it's irrelevant what the mode of transport is. If the guy's attitude had been better, then the Policeman would have accepted the details given. It's just bizarre that the guy who to the length of having a helmetcam himself doesn't know a Red Light means STOP

There's no requirement for someone on a pedal cycle to carry any form of paperwork or identification with them.

A police officer can arrest if they have reasonable grounds (and they must be objectively reasonable) to doubt the name or address given by the person, so being able to show ID may help in that regard but that's all. A police officer can't demand to see ID from a pedal cyclist.

Guest101

RS2000. wrote: »

According to what legislation?

There is no legislation which requires you to produce id. Either as a cyclist or a pedestrian.

You must simply supply them with your name and address and if applicable date if birth.

matttye

Guest101 wrote: »

This is not good practice. When they say it may harm your defence... Etc.

It's because the court will wonder why you were willing to answer some questions, but not others.

Better to either be upfront, or silent. Not both.

You're right in what you say but the court can only draw an adverse inference from failure to mention facts relied on in your defence (s.34 CJPOA 1994). You will not be putting forward a defence because you don't have one (if you're the cyclist). You can still put the prosecution to proof and not give evidence on your own behalf, in which case a different adverse inference can be drawn (s.35 CJPOA 1994).

Also, passing an officer a piece of paper with your details on it would not be held any differently by the court. To confirm this, you may or may not be aware that you can put in a pre prepared written statement at the police station to give your account. This is held to be the same as if you had given a verbal account during the interview.

It's not silence itself that causes an adverse inference to be drawn, it is the mentioning of facts when giving evidence that were not previously mentioned.

Cornucopia

We've already been through this.

- Any road user can be asked by the Police to account for their behaviour on the road - which is sensible and necessary. Some cyclists undoubtedly play upon their anonymity, but it is illusory when faced with active law enforcement.

- There are a range of behaviours which the Police can issue a fixed penalty for - this is the Law.

- A fixed penalty notice requires the name and address of the offender, and the offender is required to provide it - again perfectly sensible.

- If the officer was unsatisfied that the name and/or address were genuine, he may ask for proof or arrest the offender for the purposes of verifying the name and address given - it can't be any other way, really.

I strongly doubt that the Court would take a huge amount of notice of any verbal comments at the scene. These are basic offences, where there is no question of intent - there is only the question of whether the offence was committed or not.