In message id <
[email protected]> on Sun, 25 May 2003 00:11:06 +0100,
Mr R@t (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room
2] wrote in uk.rec.cycling :
>"John Blake" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Why didn't the police give him a lift home with the bike?
>
>Why should the police make things easier for an *offender*, at the expense of the public purse?
Practicality being more use than fastidious observance of rules.
If a cyclist is on a motorway returning home after a night on the ale, he is not likely to be far
from home. As I said before, who cycles 50 miles to get a glass of beer? If the cyclist is
disorderly he can be properly nicked. If not, the police could get him home and lecture him on the
way that he is a danger to himself and other road users. They can then get back to work patrolling
with no paperwork to complete after giving a ticking off. The offender will hopefully not re-offend
and can start an Urban Myth about getting nicked for drunk whilst cycling on the local motorway.
Or do it the other way. Arrest the cyclist. Spend hours on paperwork. Spend hours in a court. Spend
hours away from doing the job they are placed to do -deter crime on the motorway. **** poor use of
resources paid for by the public purse for something that could probably have been sorted in less
than 15 minutes at the outset.
>Motorway traffic cars are IIRC filled to the gunwales with copper-related tat such as traffic
>cones, road closed signs, dragon-lights etc so there wouldn't be much room for a bike anyway.
That may be so here in the UK where it is known that resources are limited / over stretched /
mismanaged. Whatever car is on the road may well be the only car there. But in the original message
the case was in Belgium. Are they packed to the gunwales equally so?
>Whilst his "crime" is insignificant compared to some of the things cagers do, it could still
>potentially have caused an RTC
RTC? Do you mean RTA?
>and we all should *know* the motorway is off limits to push bikes! [1] Part of the punishment (as
>well as the fine) would be having to leave the bike there, and then arrange at his *own* expense to
>retrieve it. If it were locked up, I doubt if anyone would have tried nicking it anyway.
You obviously missed the original message. The bike WAS left on the motorway locked to a crash
barrier. It wasn't there when he returned to collect it. Someone HAD nicked it. So now there ARE two
crimes instead of one. The police have doubled their work in filling out forms rather than policing.
That's where being practical is more use than being anal about following rules. But common sense
isn't common is it?
>You do the crime, you do the time... in my area if a drunk driver is nicked usually their car is
>left where it is (unless there is other crime involved and the traffic cops want to search the car
>for evidence). Anyway I bet his bike was being watched by CCTV all that time - probably how he got
>nicked in the first place...
Being drunk and in poor control of half a ton of metal where persons outwith the vehicle are in more
danger than the person inside it is no comparison to a cyclist being drunk. The cyclist is of more
danger to himself than other road users. You are not comparing like with like.
--
I don't do arguments, read the reply properly to get the context. Kind regards. If you want to take
it to email remove THE SPAM BLOKA
