Polite vests

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg

when it has this written on it:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

Do a field test and report back ;-)

vernon said:

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg

when it has this written on it:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

Do a field test and report back ;-)

A few people on Cycling Plus have and reported getting a much larger
over-taking space!

Response to spindrift:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg

when it has this written on it:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

Do a field test and report back ;-)

A few people on Cycling Plus have and reported getting a much larger
over-taking space!

ISTR reading - here, probably - that it falls under some plod-
impersonation law.

While idly googling urc on the subject, I was reminded -

Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

- that one guy had some success with the word DEAF in big letters on
the back of his hi-viz jacket. (A mate of his suggested BLIND.)

--
Mark, UK
"There was never a century nor a country that was short of experts who
knew the Deity's mind and were willing to reveal it."

Mark McNeill wrote on 27/10/2006 09:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Response to spindrift:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Is this legal:
>
> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg
>
> when it has this written on it:
>
> http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg
>
Do a field test and report back ;-)

A few people on Cycling Plus have and reported getting a much larger
over-taking space!

ISTR reading - here, probably - that it falls under some plod-
impersonation law.

While idly googling urc on the subject, I was reminded -

Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

- that one guy had some success with the word DEAF in big letters on
the back of his hi-viz jacket. (A mate of his suggested BLIND.)

I think it would be impersonating a police officer but try it. Rather
than Polite or Deaf or Blind, how about a WWII Bomber style tally of
crossed off cars printed on it.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

I think it would be impersonating a police officer but try it. Rather
than Polite or Deaf or Blind, how about a WWII Bomber style tally of
crossed off cars printed on it.

Or a tally of eight crossed-out cats...

In article said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg
when it has this written on it:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

A motorcyclist friend of a friend had similar writing on the panniers
of his bike, and was asked by the police to remove it (and warned that
if he didn't remove it when they asked nicely, he would be charged with
impersonating a police officer - since he did remove it when asked, I
don't know how the court case would have gone).

Mark McNeill said the following on 27/10/2006 09:14:

Quoted message said:

ISTR reading - here, probably - that it falls under some plod-
impersonation law.

Quite probably, but is it really any different to those "Polite notice"
signs scattered about with much the same intent - to make it appear to
be a police notice.

Besides, the police should be supporting any attempts to improve road
safety ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

sothach said:

Tony Raven said:

I think it would be impersonating a police officer but try it.
Rather than Polite or Deaf or Blind, how about a WWII Bomber style
tally of crossed off cars printed on it.

Or a tally of eight crossed-out cats...

Or badgers?

<g,d&r in case MartinM is about)>

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...

Dave Larrington said:

Or badgers?

That reminds me, I saw a live badger on Saturday morning as we were
doing some early ks on our 300.

Quoted message said:

I saw a live badger

Um, do we get more or less points for spotting a live one? Do live ones
even count?

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

I saw a live badger

Um, do we get more or less points for spotting a live one? Do live
ones even count?

Ask Andy Seviour, victim of a vicious Badger Attack on the 2005 Denmead 600.

I'm reliably informed that Peter Turnbull (who else!) managed to run over a
dead badger during the Cheddar Gorge 300 this year.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Flies are the work of Stan, and should be killed by all means
available.

Dave Larrington said:

I'm reliably informed that Peter Turnbull (who else!) managed to run
over a dead badger during the Cheddar Gorge 300 this year.

Some miles out in front, Mike Pain caused injury to a badger on the Wessex
3D last year. A service to the rest of us, I presume. Although I never
spotted the fruits of his labour.

Alan Braggins said:

In article said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg
when it has this written on it:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

A motorcyclist friend of a friend had similar writing on the panniers
of his bike, and was asked by the police to remove it (and warned that
if he didn't remove it when they asked nicely, he would be charged with
impersonating a police officer - since he did remove it when asked, I
don't know how the court case would have gone).

Who changed the thread title?

MSeries wrote on 27/10/2006 11:51 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

Or badgers?

That reminds me, I saw a live badger on Saturday morning as we were
doing some early ks on our 300.

Was it smoking?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Mark Thompson wrote on 27/10/2006 12:03 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I saw a live badger

Do live ones
even count?

Yes but only up to 20 after which they run out of toes, unless they
badger another badger.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Simon Bennett wrote on 27/10/2006 12:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Some miles out in front, Mike Pain caused injury to a badger on the Wessex
3D last year. A service to the rest of us, I presume. Although I never
spotted the fruits of his labour.

http://www.fotothing.com/photos/175/175dfb4c3dee991e4972d1af70f54024.jpg?ts=1161817011
?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Simon Bennett said:

Dave Larrington said:

I'm reliably informed that Peter Turnbull (who else!) managed to run
over a dead badger during the Cheddar Gorge 300 this year.

Some miles out in front, Mike Pain caused injury to a badger on the Wessex
3D last year. A service to the rest of us, I presume. Although I never
spotted the fruits of his labour.

A badger nearly injured me once - I was hammering down a hill at dusk
when it decided to amble across in front of me, before doing that
thing wild mammals do where they turn and run along the path ahead.
When squirrels do it, I don't worry too much. Rabbits can be dicy.

I didn't fancy running into a badger.

Especially as I was on the Trice and I would have probably then had
an injured badger landing in my lap.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

spindrift said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg

when it has this written on it:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

I couldn't say. Either way, I suspect it might make the wearer more
likely to be stopped for other reasons (like not using a cylce path...)

It reminds me of a motorcyclist I see every now and again on my London
commute. He has a high-viz jacket labelled 'Pianist' and a bike
decked-out in reflective piano keys in the requisite chequed pattern.
The overall effect is very convincing, even from close up.

This isn't quite as good, but it's the closest I could find on
t'interweb:
http://www.tubechallenge.com/pics/pianist.jpg

On a not unrelated note, I've often wondered how effective it would be
to wear a h*lmet-mounted video camera (dummy or otherwise) and a
high-viz vest indicating its presence.

spindrift said:

Is this legal:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/vest1.jpg

when it has this written on it:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c172/padbeat/Bike%20Project/Image3.jpg

Police Act 1996

90. - (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member
of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does
any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or
constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary
conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a
fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of
police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so
nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated
to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or
special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform
shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article
lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an
offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1
on the standard scale.

(4) In this section-

(a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or
any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually
issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything
having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and

(b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a
police area.

So the intent is to deceive however that attempt might not stand up to
closer examination so may not

Quoted message said:

give him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force
as to be calculated to deceive...

But, then that is qualified by (a) to

Quoted message said:

anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document

So that it might be tested at court. But in 2) specific intent is not
required merely that the garment is calculated to deceive.

Whether one would get away with the deception on the grounds that on
closer inspection it is so obviously not an article of police clothing
is debatable as it might be argued that the intent to deceive relates to
the distance at which it is intended to alter the perception of the
viewer and his behaviour.

Looks like a nightmare of possible prosecutions being tested to see what
qualifies and what doesn't and with no clear answer until it is
contested in court. Certainly an officer would be within his rights to
report the wearer for summons. NB: Remember SOCPA now means you could
be arrested for the offence under certain circumstances.

Is it worth the effort?

Sniper8052