"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mike said:
\(not quite so\) Fat Sam said:
Does anybody know what the police's view would be on this one?
Considering that the police take no notice at all of the vast majority of after-dark cyclists, who have no lights at all, I can't see them taking much interest in your lights.
On the other hand, it would be just like them to ignore the far more serious (in terms of life-threatening) offences and concentrate on your trivial offence.
Mike.
To be honest, I'd rather be illegal but visible and therefore safe than the alternative. I would be prepared to argue that point with the coppers too. Surely even they couldn't ignore the logic in that argument.
If visability is so poor that you cannot be seen without lights you would be better off using the pavement.
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mike said:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:37:56 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Does anybody know what the police's view would be on this one?
Considering that the police take no notice at all of the vast majority of after-dark cyclists, who have no lights at all, I can't see them taking much interest in your lights.
On the other hand, it would be just like them to ignore the far more serious (in terms of life-threatening) offences and concentrate on your trivial offence.
Mike.
To be honest, I'd rather be illegal but visible and therefore safe than the alternative. I would be prepared to argue that point with the coppers too. Surely even they couldn't ignore the logic in that argument.
If visability is so poor that you cannot be seen without lights you would be better off using the pavement.
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mike said:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:37:56 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Does anybody know what the police's view would be on this one?
Considering that the police take no notice at all of the vast majority of after-dark cyclists, who have no lights at all, I can't see them taking much interest in your lights.
On the other hand, it would be just like them to ignore the far more serious (in terms of life-threatening) offences and concentrate on your trivial offence.
To be honest, I'd rather be illegal but visible and therefore safe than the alternative. I would be prepared to argue that point with the coppers too. Surely even they couldn't ignore the logic in that argument.
If visability is so poor that you cannot be seen without lights you would be better off using the pavement.
Absobloodylutely not. Cyclists should not be on the pavement at any time. It's dangerous for the cyclist, and discourteous to pedestrians. The place for cyclists is on the road.
I use good - legal - lights, and usually a fair bit of retro-reflectives on my clothes. I don't have problems.
-- [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us ;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. ;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art. ;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Mike wrote: > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:37:56 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> Does anybody know what the police's view would be on this one? > > Considering that the police take no notice at all of the vast > majority of after-dark cyclists, who have no lights at all, I can't > see them taking much interest in your lights. > > On the other hand, it would be just like them to ignore the far more > serious (in terms of life-threatening) offences and concentrate on > your trivial offence. > > Mike.
To be honest, I'd rather be illegal but visible and therefore safe than the alternative. I would be prepared to argue that point with the coppers too. Surely even they couldn't ignore the logic in that argument.
If visability is so poor that you cannot be seen without lights you would be better off using the pavement.
There are no pavements here.
Have you informed the council that they are missinig?
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Mike wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:37:56 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>> Does anybody know what the police's view would be on this one? >> >> Considering that the police take no notice at all of the vast >> majority of after-dark cyclists, who have no lights at all, I >> can't see them taking much interest in your lights. >> >> On the other hand, it would be just like them to ignore the far >> more serious (in terms of life-threatening) offences and >> concentrate on your trivial offence. >> >> Mike. > > To be honest, I'd rather be illegal but visible and therefore safe > than the alternative. I would be prepared to argue that point with > the coppers too. Surely even they couldn't ignore the logic in that > argument.
If visability is so poor that you cannot be seen without lights you would be better off using the pavement.
There are no pavements here.
Have you informed the council that they are missinig?
The local gypsies stole them. Apparently they can get a good price for them on the black market.
