What would happen if i didnt give any details like this pratt or refuse to take any paper work.
youtube.com/watch?v=HNAJ3iAx … ature=fvwp
Wrong link wait i will get right one hang on
Try this one below this is correct one
i have seen this video and the rules apply to cyclist who run red lights etc. The video maker is known to make an issue out of everything and just goes about making peoples lives hell
the cyclist is an our sole.
and the reason why the officer didn’t chase is because he will just carry on being a ■■■■ 
The cop was a Buffoon, typically relying on the public being ignorant to the law.
The cop was crap at his job, and when he realises he’s not winning the argument he tries to ■■■■■■ the camera…top marks to the cyclist for not bending over and taking it.
mickyblue:
The video maker is known to make an issue out of everything and just goes about making peoples lives hell
Sounds like that idiot cyclist “magnetic atom” or what ever his name was that used to come on here. 
bullitt:
mickyblue:
The video maker is known to make an issue out of everything and just goes about making peoples lives hellSounds like that idiot cyclist “magnetic atom” or what ever his name was that used to come on here.
Yeah, when I read the thread title i though a copper had parked on his stupid head 
I agree with one specific comment made on that video
‘It is a shame the police man didn’t just ■■■■■■■ you for being a ■■■■■■ 
cycleist being a ■■■■■■■■■
and using his knowledge of law to be prize prat
off course he knows more about law he studies it everyday
it was a case of
I have just read the text book and now i can show off
Cyclists, always the victims
Of course they shouldn’t run red lights; but surely we expect a policeman to have some knowledge of the law?
As far as the offence is concerned; the days when a copper’s word would be accepted a gospel are long gone. If it went to court there would be no witnesses and it would be stroppy cyclist’s word against dim cop’s.
If there isn’t a law that would enable him to arrest an offender for failing to provide his details then there jolly well should be.
These video for example
youtube.com/watch?v=kTA_7Lzcf9E - He is also not insured
youtube.com/watch?v=IGwYdfe4Vjc&NR=1 - Another first class prat
youtube.com/watch?v=Nfp0bXaZZCY&feature= related he had his taken from him lol
this is what the UK is becoming
Santa:
Of course they shouldn’t run red lights; but surely we expect a policeman to have some knowledge of the law?As far as the offence is concerned; the days when a copper’s word would be accepted a gospel are long gone. If it went to court there would be no witnesses and it would be stroppy cyclist’s word against dim cop’s.
If there isn’t a law that would enable him to arrest an offender for failing to provide his details then there jolly well should be.
There is a LAW where if you fail to provide details you can be arrested and taken down to a station to obtain them that way. This arrest could lead to obstruct police and so on
Santa:
Of course they shouldn’t run red lights; but surely we expect a policeman to have some knowledge of the law?As far as the offence is concerned; the days when a copper’s word would be accepted a gospel are long gone. If it went to court there would be no witnesses and it would be stroppy cyclist’s word against dim cop’s.
If there isn’t a law that would enable him to arrest an offender for failing to provide his details then there jolly well should be.
I think you’ll find that police officers don’t actually have to know the exact wording of the law…they just need to know that a specific law exists and how it can be applied to a given situation. I mean for instance, can you quote word for word GV262 - 3?..I highly doubt it!
Wheel Nut:
bullitt:
mickyblue:
The video maker is known to make an issue out of everything and just goes about making peoples lives hellSounds like that idiot cyclist “magnetic atom” or what ever his name was that used to come on here.
Yeah, when I read the thread title i though a copper had parked on his stupid head
bullitt you on about the Scottish one who screams like a girl?
Adam_Mc:
Santa:
Of course they shouldn’t run red lights; but surely we expect a policeman to have some knowledge of the law?As far as the offence is concerned; the days when a copper’s word would be accepted a gospel are long gone. If it went to court there would be no witnesses and it would be stroppy cyclist’s word against dim cop’s.
If there isn’t a law that would enable him to arrest an offender for failing to provide his details then there jolly well should be.
I think you’ll find that police officers don’t actually have to know the exact wording of the law…they just need to know that a specific law exists and how it can be applied to a given situation. I mean for instance, can you quote word for word GV262 - 3?..I highly doubt it!
and have you seen the size of the book with all the LAW in it?. I just carry a book with me which shows the points to prove etc etc etc
mickyblue:
Adam_Mc:
Santa:
Of course they shouldn’t run red lights; but surely we expect a policeman to have some knowledge of the law?As far as the offence is concerned; the days when a copper’s word would be accepted a gospel are long gone. If it went to court there would be no witnesses and it would be stroppy cyclist’s word against dim cop’s.
If there isn’t a law that would enable him to arrest an offender for failing to provide his details then there jolly well should be.
I think you’ll find that police officers don’t actually have to know the exact wording of the law…they just need to know that a specific law exists and how it can be applied to a given situation. I mean for instance, can you quote word for word GV262 - 3?..I highly doubt it!
and have you seen the size of the book with all the LAW in it?. I just carry a book with me which shows the points to prove etc etc etc
I don’t think it comes as just one book lol But thats my point…I know for a fact that no-one on here could speak word for word GV262 - 03, so what chance has a copper got? Especially when the law is changing all the time.
All they need to know is what laws there are, and how to apply those laws. As long as they “can show a practical understanding and application”
Tos - ser
`Danny the Gob ’ should have been arrested (even just for the tw# tt that he was)
Police powers
When you’re cycling, a police officer can only require you to stop if he or she is in uniform. If they’re in uniform and tell you to stop, you’ll commit an offence if you don’t. (RTA s. 163(2), (3))
Similarly they can only give you a fixed penalty notice if they’re a constable in uniform. (RTOA s. 54)
They don’t have to be in uniform to arrest you. But they can only arrest you if you’re suspected of an offence, and it is necessary to arrest you for one of the following reasons (which I’ve summarised):
To enable your name and/or address to be ascertained (where they can’t ascertain this themselves, or have reasonable grounds for doubting whether what you’ve told them is accurate)
To protect against danger to you, other people or property
To prevent an obstruction of the highway
To enable the investigation of the offence, or prevent prosecution from being hindered by your disappearance.
(PACE s.24(5). There are other powers of arrest, like anti-terror provisions, but they’re for specific situations and it’s probably quite unlikely the police would try to use them in a normal traffic scenario.)
Bicycles
If you ride a bike, the rules require you to give your name and address if:
You are alleged to have committed an offence of dangerous cycling or careless/inconsiderate cycling; and
You are required by any person with reasonable grounds for asking to give your name and address. (RTA ss. 28, 29, 168(b))
Upon having given your details they can (officer of the law ) give you a FPN or advise of summons to follow.
So if there’s an allegation and a request for details, you have to give your name and address. If this happens and you don’t comply (or you give false details), you’ll commit an offence, for which the maximum penalty is £1000 (you can’t be given a FPN). (RTOA Sch 2, 3)
The law doesn’t offer much help understanding how these obligations work in practice. But the conclusions below seem to follow.
First, the person who asks for your details doesn’t need to be a police officer. Anyone can require your details.
Secondly, before you’re obliged to give your details, someone needs to have made an allegation that you were cycling dangerously or carelessly/inconsiderately. But they probably don’t have to mention the specific offences. So:
A simple “oi, that was dangerous, give me your name and address” would probably be enough to mean that you’d commit an offence if you didn’t comply.
Similarly if they said “you just crashed into my car, give me your name and address”, they might be implicitly alleging that you cycled carelessly. You’d probably be risking an offence if you refused to answer. This means that if you’re in a crash with a car and ask for the driver’s details, you’re probably obliged to give your details too.
You might find the police relying on this rule to ask for your name and address if they see you cycling while talking on your mobile (which might be careless cycling).
There are some other practical points to bear in mind too:
Obviously if you’ve been hurt it’s not a good idea to ride off. But there doesn’t seem to be any obligation on a cyclist to stop after an accident. If you’re gone before anyone alleges or requests anything, it’s difficult to see how you could commit an offence by not giving your details.
If you do ride off and haven’t given details, then (depending on the circumstances) it might be hard for the requirement to give details to be enforced (unless the police or a witness catch up with you).
This bloke was being a right prat. I would just take him to the station to shut him up. If he cant or refused to prove who he is then he needs to be taken in, end of.
I would have loved to have seen him have that attitude with a traffic cop, not sure he would have been mouthing off so much.