L
Lord Turkey Cough
Guest
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Mike wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:37:56 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
>
message news:[email protected]...
> Mike wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:37:56 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
>> <[email protected]> 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.
>
>