You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Ah yes rules on being in a fit state to use the road for some users of the road but not others.
No wonder this countries ****ed the law doesn't even make sense.
(I am aware there is no alcohol limit for cyclists how ever being impaired enough to cause a crash on the public highway regardless of mode of transport should be treated the same regardless of mode of transport) .....
Good for the goose good for the gander.
@trail_rat There's a big discussion up there^ about the Police overstepping their authority and this is another example of it. Being breathalysed whilst riding a bicycle (or falling off one) is not mandatory. It's got nothing to do with equal responsibility or geese... You cannot be compelled to and there is no penalty for not blowing whilst riding or crashing a cycle. The copper was chancing his arm pretending it was compulsory (whilst generally being a dick) and was called out. I don't think I had an attitude, just concussion and a broken neck...
Similarly, you can't be prosecuted for breaking the speed limit on a cycle as it's not mandatory to fit them with speedometers so how would you know...?
Pilots licence = over the bars (and the XC90). Keep up at the back. Tsssk. 🙂
Ah yes rules on being in a fit state to use the road for some users of the road but not others.
No wonder this countries **** the law doesn’t even make sense.
There are load of road laws that are different depending on what vehicle you are in. I'd say it generally makes sense as a concept
Ironic really given it is against the law to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs.....
It's a monetary fine mind you. And with no compulsion to take a breath test there is unlikely to be a conviction that sticks
But I guess your right in the same way that if you want to kill a cyclist and get away with it....use a car
If you want to get about drunk and cause mayhem use a bike.
Ain't loopholes brilliant
* Edit....it's all away on a tangent. Not saying boblo was drunk on his bike. I just find it hard as a concept that we have one group of road users who have to prove they were in a fit state at the time of an accident and the other who could be contributory bleezing..... More so that given the state of our roads that a cycling forum was against more policing of our roads.....
I cannot remember the last time I was pulled over period .....
How does one cause mayhem on a bike? Assuming it's not fitted with an anti-aircraft gun.
@Trail_rat Sorry, wasn't trying to start an argument on this. Just adding the anecdote about some Officers already overstepping the mark with the breathalyser. The discussion was tangentially about that specific experience so seemed relevant.
I'm not suggesting we should all go and get trollied then ride round the one way system with impunity 'cos we can'. Whatever mode of transport we choose, being sensible, responsible, law abiding and avoiding anti social behaviour (aka 'pissing people off for fun') are paramount.
<edit> Drunk? Not a chance. 10:00am and no alcohol for 17 years at time of collision. I'd been waiting for the 'when did you last have a drink?' question for ages. '02/01/04' was my very prompt reply 🙂
Ironic really given it is against the law to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs…..
Its actually "unfit" not under the influence IIRC - meaning its a higher bar. Basically if you can ride it you are OK - fall off and you broke the law!
Cops have to show you are unfit not just under the influence
I have to say IMO / IME everyone who complains about police abuse is being a richard and they failed the attitude test. Politeness goes a long way. The MET being the exception. They are some of the nastiest most racist cops around. Here? The only people I know have had issues with cops are all dickheads. mate of mine once woke up on his sofa with a note taped to his chest saying " your bike is locked up at the pub, you were too drunk to ride it, we took you home - your local cops"
No wonder this countries **** the law doesn’t even make sense
Sorry if I've caused your blood pressure to rise. I was just asking a question.
TJ - that's genius!
I've recalled the last time I was pulled over in a vehicle.
It was 2004 I'd just started uni.
It was 2 in the morning and I was driving home.
I'd been pulled over twice already that night since we left the union.
The third time I got out the car and demanded to know why I'd been pulled over three times on this particular evening. Turned out a car matching my cars description had been involved in an incident and so there was a call out to pull over any car matching.
Once he told me that I was ok with the situation. Just doing their job....kinda made sense why a car full of students 4 of whom were pished....never got asked to blow the bag.
I have to say IMO / IME everyone who complains about police abuse is being a richard and they failed the attitude test
Without wanting to point out the obvious
You are white
You are male
You are old
Your experience of the police is not the same as everyone else's. I would truly love if we could trust the police like you say but they are just human and a real mix of people who really care and some who trade off the power because they really don't have time to spend arguing the toss. I would love to be able to give the police the freedom that you want them to have but I'm not sure it is safe
I would love to be able to give the police the freedom that you want them to have but I’m not sure it is safe
Whereas outside of London I am sure it is safe. I know white guys my age that have had trouble with the cops - being awkward they were so the cop was awkward back
I spent a summer working alongside the police. Never saw anything of concern even when IMO a bit of a kicking would have been warrented
complains about police abuse is being a richard and they failed the attitude test.
Where in law is the 'attitude test' recorded? If it isn't enacted legislation the Police have no business applying it. Apply the law without fear or favour is one of the Peel principles. Officers are there to uphold the law not make it up as they go along, nor behave like a gang of thugs.
@boblo - “Similarly, you can’t be prosecuted for breaking the speed limit on a cycle as it’s not mandatory to fit them with speedometers so how would you know…?”
Not being pedantic, just another example of “one rule for you and another for us” I found was that you can be fined for speeding in the Royal Parks on a bicycle.
In Richmond Park the 20mph limit is technically enforced for all road users including cyclists. Obvs the Strava segments show some people go a bit faster! 🤣
@kimura54321 I seem to recall that from somewhere or other. How on earth is it enforceable when you may have no way of knowing how fast you're travelling as there's no speedo requirement or standard for cycles?
Outside of the parks, I think the charge is something like 'wanton or furious' cycling which dates back to the days of horses and carts as there's nothing else suitable that is applicable to cyclists.
Happy to be corrected on any of that.
I don’t think I’d agree to one either really. Likewise, if a police officer knocked on my door and said “excuse me sir, we’re checking the local area for crime, you won’t mind if we have a look round your house to see if any crimes are being committed?” I’d ask for the warrant. You don’t have to be a dick about it. But I think in general, power should be resisted as it’s a thin edge of the wedge thing.
Driving isn't the same as owning a home, or simply existing. It requires a licence, and the terms of that licence require a minimum standard from the licence holder, and some of those standards can only really be enforced through routine checks - in the same way food hygiene authorities routinely check your local kebab shop. It's no different.
Power is a dangerous thing, but so is treating driving as a fundamental human right, rather than a licence to operate powerful and dangerous machinary.
@boblo - Yep, you are right about how to tell and on the cycling laws for must/must not.
I think they had some speed traps on the Richmond Park hills in the past.
Admittedly not from “recent” personal experience, but I used to assume I was going faster than 20mph when I used to overtake the cars on my road bike…
I used to assume I was going faster than 20mph when I used to overtake the cars on my road bike
...On the M1... 😀
Sandwhich - boy you have a chip
Its about basic respect. Want good service from any public servant be plite. try going into a hospital and shoulting the odds - you will soon be removed and you will get shit service. complain about your food in a restaurant with no need - you know they will spit in the remade dish and so on
I tell you 3 times - if you want to avoid confrontation with police just be polite. Same as if you want good interactions with anyone
The way I have seen people interact badly with police and escalating it until they get arrested is so common.
As you say - Its easier as an older white man living in an area with a good police force - but remember I also go back to being a young man living on the mosside boarder in manchester and being a bit of a scally
Edit - just to be clear - the only extra power I want the police to have is to be able to random breath test adnI would like that done like in Aus - a roadblock and everyone gets tested
Outside of the parks, I think the charge is something like ‘wanton or furious’ cycling which dates back to the days of horses and carts as there’s nothing else suitable that is applicable to cyclists.
Not in Scotland - I asked the duty seargent to check for me on a quiet night
its careless, reckless and dangerous cycling same as driving.
Driving isn’t the same as owning a home, or simply existing. It requires a licence, and the terms of that licence require a minimum standard from the licence holder, and some of those standards can only really be enforced through routine checks – in the same way food hygiene authorities routinely check your local kebab shop. It’s no different.
Power is a dangerous thing, but so is treating driving as a fundamental human right, rather than a licence to operate powerful and dangerous machinary.
Sums up the difficulty quite nicely. I have no issue with random stops, but I'm white, middle aged and middle classed. The Police have only stopped me when I've broken the law and I've held my hands up. Other people will have very different experiences.
As a young man in glasgow driving my mothers car I was stopped pretty much every time I drove. Never any issues as everything was legal and I was polite but it was annoying - with hindsight? I was driving across the city late at night and driving like a knob. Obvious pull for a cop
**** it remove the ability for it to be random - that does have wiggle room to be abused.
Road block goes up. Nothing gets through without blowing the bag .
There's no room for any prejudice or otherwise.
That's how it was done in NZ when I had to go through as a non drinking 22 year old on a Sunday morning. Very few words spoken little.more than breath into this. Those of us blowing clear were free to go. Those who didn't were taken to the side and I assume process took hold then.
I can see why random stops would be problematic for some.
its careless, reckless and dangerous cycling same as driving
Sorry, that's not the same as driving. When driving, it's known as 'speedin'. All those other things can be much more serious...
BTW, you all right TJ? You don't seem yourself.
I have no issue with random stops, but I’m white, middle aged and middle classed
I'd fit around about into that bracket now, but when I was younger I was stopped on a weekly basis. I think my record was 3 times in one night. I'd keep the producers for the full 7 or 14 days (whatever it was) to save trips to the police station, because I'd generally be stopped again whilst holding it. Had polite stops, and very aggressive ones, shouted at and threatened for no reason at all. Been searched on the roadside in full public view on numerous occasions. In fact I think I first got searched at about 13 year old, well before even owning a car. I guess I looked like a wrong'n.
I have definitely experienced a spectrum of very different attitudes across those experiences and in some cases an abuse of power. But I think it's a different discussion to randomly breathalising people. (I've also been breathalysed on numerous occasions during these stops without any reason to suspect I'd been drinking)
I used to assume I was going faster than 20mph when I used to overtake the cars on my road bike
I overtook a Fiesta at the bottom of my road once! It’s a slight downhill, and I had a following wind, and having just set off I was feeling fresh so wound the bike up onto the big ring and went for it. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a bunch of young people with their mouths open as I went past. According to my little bar computer I clocked 35mph. Just around the bend there’s a side road that I was turning into, having braked beforehand and before they could pass me. At which point I was gasping for breath, and about to have a coronary! 🥵
That was on my old Cannondale SuperVee 3000.
I have topped 40mph+ on a decent downhill on one of my mountain bikes, but I have to admit at that speed it’s starting to feel a bit sketchy, and thoughts of being scrubbed down to clean up gravel rash were starting to pass through my mind…
@boblo - Most flattering thing anyone has said this week! M1 if only… 😅
@countzero - Sounds line you had a good run for it 👍
Fastest for me downhill on my steel road bike was 43mph in my younger days on a familiar downhill, not quite as brave now for the reasons you mentioned.
I have been well over 55 mph on the tandem. Tracked straight and true.
corroded
Free Member
They do total roadblocks in Australia, usually on the edges of towns to catch people heading home after drinking. All for it if it gets idiots off the road, though I don’t think we’d get away with it in the UK.
They do this anywhere. Can be as little as one car, 2 TEGs and a few cones (TEG's = traffic enforcement group) to a large operation where they have a booze bus (yup - massive truck with all the full booze / drug testing gear) both sides of the road blocked and bikes / cars / unmarked all over the place to catch people trying to avoid it. Oh, and at any time of the day too. Not unheard of to be breath tested on the way to work in the morning.
Unfortunately it doesn't keep the eejuts off the road but it does catch the more prolific eejuts. Oh and if you drive a white Holden Commodore you're VERY likely to get pulled.
Having said all this, there is surprisingly few cops out on the road day to day. When I first moved here it was rare to even hear a siren. Little different now as we're 2k from the hospital. I've been stopped once for an RBT (roadside breath test) in 12 is years but my SIL who's tea-total gets stopped heaps of times.
@tjagain Have a look at how the New Zealand Police deal with unruly stops and come back to me. The way our police service behave does not show up well by comparison. (Usual caveats about TV having only the better face presented but our service doesn't show well on equivalent programmes, there will be official violence shown on a British version, rarely if ever on NZ).
As a result of public expectation our police service gets exactly what it deserves. Being polite and not looking for an excuse to kick off by the officer will get better results all around and is part of policing by consent.
I have no time for uniformed bullies, not a chip.
I can't believe what I'm reading on a cycling forum. Do we really think it's appropriate to treat cars and bikes equally? Remember that time a cyclist got pissed, rode into a car and killed all the occupants? Me neither. If a car runs over a pedestrian, should we be breathalysing the pedestrian just in case he was over the limit and shouldn't have been crossing the road so it was totally his fault?
What "should" happen is nothing more than a thought exercise anyway, it has no more validity than "they should pay road tax." Maybe they should, but they don't and that's it, end of. As I said earlier, what should happen is that police should - MUST - be following correct legal process rather making shit up and intimidating members of the public. If the law is wrong then it's the law that needs to change.
I can’t believe what I’m reading on a cycling forum. Do we really think it’s appropriate to
Just let drunks carry on as before.
Which is the more shocking thing than all road users being accountable for their actions. But you carry on with your them and us mentality. - it's working so far that's clear to see
TJ, you really need to understand that your opinions aren't always facts (just like most everyone else's) and that your personal experiences are not necessarily representative of the rest of the country.
You might well have Bobbies in leafy Edinburgh who will tell you the time whist genuflecting so long as you're polite to them, and the MET maybe institutionally racist or whatever it was you said, I don't know. But the rest of the country is not that polar, it's not that simple.
I have had mixed dealings with the police over the years. They've mostly been polite but I've had a couple of power-mad shits. I've met them all in the same manner every time, so how can that be an attitude test? Other people on this very thread have said they've had similar experiences.
... and this is why giving them 'free reign'[sic] is a really bad idea. Because some - a minority perhaps, but's still too many - will abuse that power.
In my opinion, of course.
Just let drunks carry on as before.
You know damn well that that isn't what I meant.
Which is the more shocking thing than all road users being accountable for their actions.
See also, "she was asking for it."
See also, “she was asking for it.”
No . Just no. Your classier than that. Still time.
What you're describing is victim blaming.
If a driver runs over a cyclist and it happens that the cyclist was over the driving alcohol limit, you want it to be the cyclist's fault for not taking responsibility? Because, currently, motorists are often unfairly harshly prosecuted when they hit / kill cyclists?
I agree that anyone using the road should take basic precautions, lights on bikes for instance (hey, if only there were laws about that...!) but larger traffic has a duty of care to be aware of more vulnerable road users. There's sufficient anti-bike sentiment and travesties of justice out there already without giving them even more ammo.
TL;DR - you cannot treat all road users equally because they are not all equal.
Your in for a shock when you find out about contributory negligence.
You're right. Even that being the case though, was boblo (I think) in a fit state to take a test after almost being killed?
Who was it earlier complaining about loopholes?