Police Officer with a chip?

[potsy]

Rider's a cock.

I was going to write a lengthy response on my opinion of the cyclist but I think glenn's pretty much summed it up

 

[Hill Wimp]

Again, he hasnt technically jumped the lights. Provide evidence to the counter if you believe that.

Who says its safest to detour around the pavements/barriers? Stats, please.

He has, his behaviour on approach to the lights indicates he is a cyclist and as he has stayed on the road and crossed at the road junction then he needs to obey the road traffic signs and signals.

 

[downfader]

He has, his behaviour on approach to the lights indicates he is a cyclist and as he has stayed on the road and crossed at the road junction then he needs to obey the road traffic signs and signals.

But you havent shown me either a real world law or a highway code example to back that up. Therefore I call BS under the case law of Cranks v Brooks. Or did you fail to google that too?

 

[CopperCyclist]

Ah, one of those scenarios when you have someone insisting "its not technically against the law so you can't stop me".

This defence is usually legally sound, but also usually utilised by cockwombles doing something that the majority of people know would not be approved of by many around them.

Pound to a penny the reply to my post will be sometime simply admonishing me and repeating the "but it's legal" mantra.

 

[downfader]

Ah, one of those scenarios when you have someone insisting "its not technically against the law so you can't stop me".

This defence is usually legally sound, but also usually utilised by cockwombles doing something that the majority of people know would not be approved of by many around them.

Pound to a penny the reply to my post will be sometime simply admonishing me and repeating the "but it's legal" mantra.

Ok, lets take this via another route. What actual risk was caused by said rider?

 

[buggi]

Technically he did nothing wrong, morally he did. He only got off coz he knew the copper was watching. We all know he would have just rode across otherwise and so does the copper

 

[downfader]

Technically he did nothing wrong, morally he did. He only got off coz he knew the copper was watching. We all know he would have just rode across otherwise and so does the copper

This is getting to be a real face-palm thing... It was an unmarked police car. Buggi, are you really suggesting he would have altered his behaviour on that basis? Morally doesnt come into it unless you cause risk... danger.. etc

 

[Tin Pot]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvPMXq3XoI


Saw this on twitter. What I note from this is how I've been advised by my local constabulary to do the same thing where I feel there is a threat to my safety, or where sensors do not detect cycles. It reminds me of the time my Brother and I stopped a local bobby and questioned why he'd told a kid that taking a photo in public was "illegal". That later lead to an official complaint from my Brother who said the guy had to me made aware of his errors.

I left a comment suggesting the rider takes this further. Another has quoted the Cranks legal case.

What a twat.

With an attitude like that we can rest assured he will get his head kicked in at some point.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Ok, lets take this via another route. What actual risk was caused by said rider?

Police officer head off, speaking just as myself here.

The 'risk' is purely the extension and reaffirmation of many drivers that "all cyclists red light jump". They won't care about the technicalities of the law.

 

[swansonj]

I think the legalities are more nuanced than some are allowing. C v. B establishes that when you start on foot on a pavement, push across the road, and end up on the other pavement, you are a pedestrian even though you are pushing a vehicle. When you start on the bike on the carriageway and never leave it, I think C v. B does not apply directly and you could well still be a vehicle in the eyes of the law, not entitled to cross red lights.

 

[Sara_H]

If he didn't have a bike it would have been legal for him to run across there, so why does the fact that he had a bike make it illegal?

 

[Sara_H]

The world's gone mad.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3720959, member: 45"]He was being cheeky. Policeman was unprofessional. That's all.[/QUOTE]
that's pretty much the top and bottom of it.

 

[Feastie]

If you're walking, you're a pedestrian and have every right to go over a pedestrian crossing like this guy did. If he'd cycled over a pedestrian crossing then that would have been different because he could have cycled over/into a pedestrian. But he became a pedestrian in order to use the crossing... which is the whole point of it.

I'm kind of surprised by people's responses to the contrary.

 

[doog]

No win situation for either party. I guess the cop felt the need to have a word and thats all it was. Not worth getting excited about it.