|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
In article
Phil W Lee wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:11:17 -0400 (EDT), John Kennerson wrote: In article JNugent wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:54:31 +0100, Nick wrote: On 29/07/2014 23:06, Ian Jackson wrote: My understanding has always been that the offence was not not carrying your motoring documents (licence, certificate of insurance and, where applicable, MOT certificate), but instead it was failing to produce them (there and then) at the request of a police officer. Yep. I have now actually looked at the act rather than misremembered other posts on the subject. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165 The seven day rule is clear sections 3 and 4. It was slightly topical for me as my son applied to have his driving licence back six weeks ago and when he checked to see why they hadn't sent it to him was told that it wouldn't be ready for another 4 weeks but that he was ok to drive without it. They even promised to send him a letter to that effect. Another instance of not needing anyone's permission to drive. Not really, the license isn't the piece of paper. Waht part of "...my son applied to have..." are you too thick to understand? The bit that says you aren't Phil W Lee |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:06:15 PM UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message ers.net, Anonymous writes In article Nick wrote: On 27/07/2014 19:25, JNugent wrote: Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license") with one at all times. As a pedantic point, in theory in the UK I thought we were required to carry a driving licence. No AIUI the almost universal rule that the offence of not carrying a licence will not be pursued if the document is produced at a police station within 7 days is a privilege not a legal right. No Perhaps this is out of date the only time I have been asked by the police to produce my licence was 20 to 30 years ago. Probably My understanding has always been that the offence was not not carrying your motoring documents (licence, certificate of insurance and, where applicable, MOT certificate), but instead it was failing to produce them (there and then) at the request of a police officer. -- Ian That's right. But the net effect of "producing" is that you have to carry the documents. Generally speaking, the police in their discretion allow you to produce the documents at a police station (possibly a specified local police station -- I don't know, because it has never happened to me) within a specified time, normally seven days. This applies to Britain, or did the last time I lived there. Andre Jute |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On 30/07/2014 17:28, Jack Ryan wrote:
In article Phil W Lee wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:11:17 -0400 (EDT), John Kennerson wrote: In article JNugent wrote: On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:54:31 +0100, Nick wrote: On 29/07/2014 23:06, Ian Jackson wrote: My understanding has always been that the offence was not not carrying your motoring documents (licence, certificate of insurance and, where applicable, MOT certificate), but instead it was failing to produce them (there and then) at the request of a police officer. Yep. I have now actually looked at the act rather than misremembered other posts on the subject. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165 The seven day rule is clear sections 3 and 4. It was slightly topical for me as my son applied to have his driving licence back six weeks ago and when he checked to see why they hadn't sent it to him was told that it wouldn't be ready for another 4 weeks but that he was ok to drive without it. They even promised to send him a letter to that effect. Another instance of not needing anyone's permission to drive. Not really, the license isn't the piece of paper. Waht part of "...my son applied to have..." are you too thick to understand? The bit that says you aren't Phil W Lee As has already been remarked, there's a lot of it about. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:06:15 PM UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote: In message ers.net, Anonymous writes In article Nick wrote: On 27/07/2014 19:25, JNugent wrote: Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license") with one at all times. As a pedantic point, in theory in the UK I thought we were required to carry a driving licence. No AIUI the almost universal rule that the offence of not carrying a licence will not be pursued if the document is produced at a police station within 7 days is a privilege not a legal right. No Perhaps this is out of date the only time I have been asked by the police to produce my licence was 20 to 30 years ago. Probably My understanding has always been that the offence was not not carrying your motoring documents (licence, certificate of insurance and, where applicable, MOT certificate), but instead it was failing to produce them (there and then) at the request of a police officer. -- Ian That's right. But the net effect of "producing" is that you have to carry the documents. Generally speaking, the police in their discretion allow you to produce the documents at a police station (possibly a specified local police station -- I don't know, because it has never happened to me) within a specified time, normally seven days. This applies to Britain, or did the last time I lived there. Andre Jute Depends on where you are over here. Just google for driving without a license on person. First hit for me is http://www.slsedmonton.com/criminal/traffic/safety/ 200 bucks for no license at all. 150 for not having it with you. -- duane |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:44:29 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:06:15 PM UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote: In message ers.net, Anonymous writes In article Nick wrote: On 27/07/2014 19:25, JNugent wrote: Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license") with one at all times. As a pedantic point, in theory in the UK I thought we were required to carry a driving licence. No AIUI the almost universal rule that the offence of not carrying a licence will not be pursued if the document is produced at a police station within 7 days is a privilege not a legal right. No Perhaps this is out of date the only time I have been asked by the police to produce my licence was 20 to 30 years ago. Probably My understanding has always been that the offence was not not carrying your motoring documents (licence, certificate of insurance and, where applicable, MOT certificate), but instead it was failing to produce them (there and then) at the request of a police officer. -- Ian That's right. But the net effect of "producing" is that you have to carry the documents. Generally speaking, the police in their discretion allow you to produce the documents at a police station (possibly a specified local police station -- I don't know, because it has never happened to me) within a specified time, normally seven days. This applies to Britain, or did the last time I lived there. Andre Jute Depends on where you are over here. Just google for driving without a license on person. First hit for me is http://www.slsedmonton.com/criminal/traffic/safety/ 200 bucks for no license at all. 150 for not having it with you. -- duane Those are stiff fines for what is after all a small organizational oversight, not a bank robbery. Andre Jute |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:44:29 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote: Andre Jute wrote: On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:06:15 PM UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote: In message ers.net, Anonymous writes In article Nick wrote: On 27/07/2014 19:25, JNugent wrote: Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license") with one at all times. As a pedantic point, in theory in the UK I thought we were required to carry a driving licence. No AIUI the almost universal rule that the offence of not carrying a licence will not be pursued if the document is produced at a police station within 7 days is a privilege not a legal right. No Perhaps this is out of date the only time I have been asked by the police to produce my licence was 20 to 30 years ago. Probably My understanding has always been that the offence was not not carrying your motoring documents (licence, certificate of insurance and, where applicable, MOT certificate), but instead it was failing to produce them (there and then) at the request of a police officer. -- Ian That's right. But the net effect of "producing" is that you have to carry the documents. Generally speaking, the police in their discretion allow you to produce the documents at a police station (possibly a specified local police station -- I don't know, because it has never happened to me) within a specified time, normally seven days. This applies to Britain, or did the last time I lived there. Andre Jute Depends on where you are over here. Just google for driving without a license on person. First hit for me is http://www.slsedmonton.com/criminal/traffic/safety/ 200 bucks for no license at all. 150 for not having it with you. -- duane Those are stiff fines for what is after all a small organizational oversight, not a bank robbery. Andre Jute Alberta is special. I'm not sure what the fines are here in Quebec. That was just the first google hit. I think the issue is that normally you're being asked for your license so they can write you up and they don't like the hassle with a computer search. Maybe just a money grab. Don't know. Of course here we get demerit points on our license for certain cycling infractions - blowing a light or something. You don't have to carry a drivers license when you aren't driving but they seem quite capable of working it out anyway. -- duane |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:05:52 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Of course here we get demerit points on our license for certain cycling infractions - blowing a light or something. A sneaky administrative way of *licensing* bicyclists. In the perfect police state everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. Andre Jute |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On 7/31/2014 6:29 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:05:52 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote: Of course here we get demerit points on our license for certain cycling infractions - blowing a light or something. A sneaky administrative way of *licensing* bicyclists. In the perfect police state everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. Andre Jute Yes. But then again, there are a lot of cyclists around here and not all of them ride very carefully. I guess it's a way to get the point across. 3 points on your license increases your car insurance for 3 years. More significant than a simple fine. Personally, I'd prefer if they also did this for people riding the wrong way on the road with head phones on and texting. These are the ones I find particularly dangerous. What's sneaky is if you don't have a car, the points stay on your "record" for 5 years in case you get one. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:15:11 AM UTC-4, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 7/31/2014 6:29 AM, Andre Jute wrote: On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:05:52 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote: Of course here we get demerit points on our license for certain cycling infractions - blowing a light or something. A sneaky administrative way of *licensing* bicyclists. In the perfect police state everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. Andre Jute Yes. But then again, there are a lot of cyclists around here and not all of them ride very carefully. I guess it's a way to get the point across. 3 points on your license increases your car insurance for 3 years. More significant than a simple fine. Personally, I'd prefer if they also did this for people riding the wrong way on the road with head phones on and texting. These are the ones I find particularly dangerous. What's sneaky is if you don't have a car, the points stay on your "record" for 5 years in case you get one. Unfortunately it does nothing for the scofflaw bicyclists who do not have a motor vehicle license. That is the driving force behind those who want to see bicyclists licensed as are other motor vehicle users. The only collision I ever had with another vehicle was when I collided with wrong way (single lane road) bicyclist who zoomed out of the blind intersection onto busy King Street in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. That collision bent my front fork back to the point the front tire would not clear the downtube. Fortunately bu turning the bicycle upside down and putting my feet against tthe bottom bracket shell, I was able to straighten it enough to ride the 50 kilometers home. Unfortunately the downtube was also bent and at the time I didn't have tthe expertise to straighten it. That was the end of a very nice track frame. thus, I detest wrong way riding bicyclists. Cheers |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9
On 7/31/2014 12:54 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:15:11 AM UTC-4, Duane Hébert wrote: On 7/31/2014 6:29 AM, Andre Jute wrote: On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:05:52 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote: Of course here we get demerit points on our license for certain cycling infractions - blowing a light or something. A sneaky administrative way of *licensing* bicyclists. In the perfect police state everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. Andre Jute Yes. But then again, there are a lot of cyclists around here and not all of them ride very carefully. I guess it's a way to get the point across. 3 points on your license increases your car insurance for 3 years. More significant than a simple fine. Personally, I'd prefer if they also did this for people riding the wrong way on the road with head phones on and texting. These are the ones I find particularly dangerous. What's sneaky is if you don't have a car, the points stay on your "record" for 5 years in case you get one. Unfortunately it does nothing for the scofflaw bicyclists who do not have a motor vehicle license. That is the driving force behind those who want to see bicyclists licensed as are other motor vehicle users. The only collision I ever had with another vehicle was when I collided with wrong way (single lane road) bicyclist who zoomed out of the blind intersection onto busy King Street in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. That collision bent my front fork back to the point the front tire would not clear the downtube. Fortunately bu turning the bicycle upside down and putting my feet against tthe bottom bracket shell, I was able to straighten it enough to ride the 50 kilometers home. Unfortunately the downtube was also bent and at the time I didn't have tthe expertise to straighten it. That was the end of a very nice track frame. thus, I detest wrong way riding bicyclists. Yeah, I thought I made it clear that I share that sentiment? I've had a few near misses with these twits. Anyway, some of these scofflaw bicyclists are teens who will have a drivers license shortly and their parents are going to love the 3 year bump in insurance fees. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycling perspectives 1 of 9 | Sig[_3_] | UK | 52 | August 8th 14 07:11 PM |
Cycling perspectives ( 6 of 9) an employer or business | Sig[_3_] | UK | 0 | July 18th 14 07:14 AM |
Cycling perspectives ( 5 of 9 ) A Tax Payer | Sig[_3_] | UK | 0 | July 17th 14 09:33 AM |
Cycling perspectives ( 4 of 9 ) Trying to get fit and healthy | Sig[_3_] | UK | 0 | July 16th 14 08:27 AM |
Cycling perspectives (3 of 9) A parent | Sig[_3_] | UK | 0 | July 15th 14 08:23 AM |