On 08/06/18 12:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 08/06/2018 11:50, JNugent wrote:
On 07/06/2018 23:14, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 8:45:15 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
A DRUNKEN cyclist who rode along the A19 in dark clothing late at night
has been sentenced by York magistrates.
Christopher Bernard Power, 46, “was wobbling about the road unable to
keep a straight line” and a Vauxhall Corsa had to brake when the
cyclist
swerved into his path in Escrick, PC Michael Rowan told the court.
Giving evidence at Power’s trial, he said when he and another officer
managed to stop Power after several attempts, “I had to go up to him to
stop him falling over".
Power claimed he was called “Pavel” and was so abusive and struggled so
much it took four officers to get him into a police van.
He screamed and continued to be violent at Fulford Road Police Station,
the court heard.
Power, of Chestnut Drive, Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, east of Selby, did
not
attend his trial and was convicted in his absence of being drunk in
charge of a bicycle and obstructing police.
He smelt of alcohol and had glazed eyes.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1627...about__on_A19/


Yet another example of how cyclists are treated more harshly by the
courts than motorists.
Smelling of alcohol and having glazed eyes would not be enough to
convict a motorist.

Would a driver escape being convicted of assaulting police after
he/she had assaulted police?

and would a drunk driver that failed to stop when directed to do so and
subsequently failed to attend court, have received merely a conditional
discharge and a twenty quid fine?

The police were trying to protect the person from harming himself (it
would have looked bad had they known about it and left him to get
squashed). A drunk driver has the capacity to cause harm to others. If
that isn't the issue at stake, what is it?