Illegal coppers

[yorkshiregoth]

Cycling home last night at about 20:00 hrs in Heston and I saw two police officers on bikes, neither of whom had any lights whatsoever, neither front or back. All they had were their yellow hi-viz jackets. They were not setting a very good example to the local POB's.

 

[Matthew_T]

I would have advised them of some lights. It isnt illegal (I dont think) for bikes to not have lights.

 

[subaqua]

I would have advised them of some lights. It isnt illegal (I dont think) for bikes to not have lights.

the triple negatives really don't help that post

 

[yorkshiregoth]

I beg to differ:

60

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24
Although my pedals don't have reflectors on them.

 

[Peteaud]

Perhaps they were undercover?

 

[Matthew_T]

I beg to differ:

60

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24
Although my pedals don't have reflectors on them.

Fair point. Its only their safety they are putting at risk though.

 

[Gary E]

Fair point. Its only their safety they are putting at risk though.

Tell that to the car driver who swerves to miss them at the last minute and hits a pedestrian/other car!

 

[TonyEnjoyD]

Perhaps they were undercover?

More chance of being under a vehicle at that rate!

 

[PK99]

Fair point. Its only their safety they are putting at risk though.

No it isn't.

It is easy to imagine scenarios:

Pedestrian steps out in front of unlit cyclist
A car swerves to avoid a late seen unlit cyclist and hits another car, or pedestrian, or other cyclist legitimately overtaking the car.
etc

 

[Boris Bajic]

the triple negatives really don't help that post

Am I then not wrong in taking it that were it not for the stacked negatives, you might or might not believe the author ought not to have used, you wouldn't be any less nonplussed with his syntax than you give the impression of not being as I type?

Or am I not?

 

[subaqua]

Am I then not wrong in taking it that were it not for the stacked negatives, you might or might not believe the author ought not to have used, you wouldn't be any less nonplussed with his syntax than you give the impression of not being as I type?

Or am I not?

in bestest Gog - do one

 

[MossCommuter]

PCSO riding on the pavement is a regular sight round work

Does my nut

 

[pablo666]

Not being funny but stop being 'Holier than thou'
Agree with should have lights on if anywhere on a road and in uniform.
Pavements are sometimes the safest place to ride carefully (giving way of course to all peds).
Cycling round the same footpaths that the burglars use is very good patrolling, though technically unlawful. It's the lesser of two evils I'm afraid. Yes poor example but no end of good examples haven't made a difference over the last 100 years: people still ride on the path and jump red lights.
Society is a complex place: its not the garden of Eden so don't expect perfection in your little world.

 

[Cycleops]

You shouldn't complain too much. At least it's better than the coppers down here who stop you at every opportunity to ask, 'What have you got for me today then?'

 

[vernon]

You shouldn't complain too much. At least it's better than the coppers down here who stop you at every opportunity to ask, 'What have you got for me today then?'

So did you give them one then?