"Cyclist thrown in cells – for having no light"

[snibgo]

That's the headline, though it's probably for not giving his details.

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/ ... -1-6219848

[Adam S]

Catch 22 isn't it? Much public support for doing something about cyclists not having lights but the police shouldn't pursue it if the cyclist doesn't want to have a fine

[coast 2 coast]

If he had accepted a warning on the road at the time, none of that would have happened. So what if the clocks had gone back? He was breaking the law and riding in a way that the policeman felt, he was at risk of causing an accident. He decided to jerk the police around, refusing to give his details. So in return he got sent on a run about. He might have got off at the magistrates but he will have still had all the stress to cope with and a morning off work, for which nobody will be compensating him for. Looser. And all us tax payers foot the bill of police and magistrates time, because that arrogant fool thought he was above the law.

[eileithyia]

Locally the understanding is; he declined to identify himself and it was for this he was locked up not and not the original crime of no lights....

[snibgo]

There was a video and discussion some while ago on these forums with a cyclist asking a PC (or PCSO) whether he was obliged to give his name and address. The PC replied, "If you don't, how can I give you a ticket?" The cyclist said "exactly."

As far as I can see, the police can require a motor vehicle driver to give N&A at any time under RTA 1988. That act doesn't require cyclists to do so, except for serious offences.

However, PACE 1984 s24 gives a PC powers to arrest a cyclist (or anyone else) who has committed any offence but doesn't provide N&A, as I read it.

"You're nicked, my son," as Dixon of Dock Green would say, before carting him off to the cells, and taking fingerprints and DNA.

[thirdcrank]

This bit of PACE has been replaced by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110

(Don't ask whether cycling without lights is serious organised crime.)

[Mark1978]

Isn't the problem that the law changes so regularly recently nobody has a firm grip on what their rights are. Even the police.

[Mick F]

.................... but what did the police do with his bike when he was bundled into the police car?

Surely they have a responsibility for his "vehicle". They couldn't have ridden it coz it had no lights. Did they put it in the boot or on the back seat? I doubt they have a bike rack. I also doubt they would have locked it up unless they used a pair of police handcuffs!

Either way, had they left it on the road and someone nicked it .............................

[reohn2]

If he had accepted a warning on the road at the time, none of that would have happened. So what if the clocks had gone back? He was breaking the law and riding in a way that the policeman felt, he was at risk of causing an accident. He decided to jerk the police around, refusing to give his details. So in return he got sent on a run about. He might have got off at the magistrates but he will have still had all the stress to cope with and a morning off work, for which nobody will be compensating him for. Looser. And all us tax payers foot the bill of police and magistrates time, because that arrogant fool thought he was above the law.

Spot on IMO.

From the linked article:-

A spokesman for Lancashire Police said Mr Copland was arrested and taken to a police station after he refused to provide his details

You've also got to ask,why wasn't he prosecuted for that,I presume it is an offence to withhold your details on request by a police officer if s/he suspects you've committed a crime.

[[XAP]Bob]

Had he not realised the clocks had changed?

Daft, but not worthy of that rigmarole - did they check the age of the bike?

[thirdcrank]

I've gone into the history and background of this type of thing before. The more cyclists take the line "You can't do this to me" the more they will find that the police can and from time-to-time will.

... You've also got to ask,why wasn't he prosecuted for that,I presume it is an offence to withhold your details on request by a police officer if s/he suspects you've committed a crime.

Although there are circumstances where it's an offence not give your name and address when asked, riding without lights isn't one of them; the power of arrest is to identify the alleged offender and once that's been done, the original offence(s) are dealt with. OTOH, although we used to regard stiff details as all part of the game, the CPS and the rest of the system now treat it as perverting the course of justice, so I'd recommend avoiding it.

[rand]

Had he not realised the clocks had changed?

Daft, but not worthy of that rigmarole - did they check the age of the bike?

Please, what is the relevance to the age of the bike?

Rand.

[[XAP]Bob]

Had he not realised the clocks had changed?

Daft, but not worthy of that rigmarole - did they check the age of the bike?

Please, what is the relevance to the age of the bike?

Rand.

With *no* lights, not alot. but the requirements for lights and reflectors are significantly reduced for pre 1985 vehicles.

[Adam S]

Isn't the problem that the law changes so regularly recently nobody has a firm grip on what their rights are. Even the police.

Maybe in other cases, but I can't believe anyone actually thinks they have a right to avoid a fine by not giving their name

[Mick F]

Who's name should you give?

A mate of mine has a name, address and DOB remembered by heart and can give it in "all honesty" but completely fictitiously.