Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 108438	2010-03-28 23:00:00	I thought I liked the police	Thomas01 (317)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
870734	2010-03-29 03:13:00	I agreed with the lad all the way. Wearing crash hats is sensible but no way should be compulsory for cyclists. But it is and if you don't wear a helmet then you wear the consequences. Apart from the fact that people break the law by not wearing one have you not seen the publicity in the ChCh paper lately about several cyclists being saved from very serious head injuries by their helmets? I certainly wouldn't go without mine, even for just a quick trip down the road.	FoxyMX (5)
870735	2010-03-29 03:40:00	As he didn't give his name, he must have had something to hide from the police.	Ice Road Trucker (15659)
870736	2010-03-29 04:08:00	Sounds like a pretty standard cyclist. Laws are only for others. Should have tasered him, then booked him for breakdancing in a public place without a permit	R2x1 (4628)
870737	2010-03-29 04:15:00	I think if he showed a bit more respect then he may have got away with a warning.... I do have to agree with you of course. But supposing it had been me! Overly sensitive, always polite, no threat to anybody, I would have been very respectful and probably would have got away with it. But why should I get away with it. He had broken a daft law - I had done the same. The Tolpuddle Martyrs were pretty arrogant as were many of the Union officials who fought against other daft laws and made my life better. It does seem to me that many people are too prepared to accept any restriction. "It's THE LAW" Yeah right (not my normal phrase but it seems to be the "in thing" to finish comments with this).	Thomas01 (317)
870738	2010-03-29 04:20:00	As he didn't give his name, he must have had something to hide from the police. No he didn't - he was a perfectly innocent person with no record.	Thomas01 (317)
870739	2010-03-29 04:20:00	I<snip> Do you think that seeing cyclists are supposed to wear helmets then we should also wear them when on a bus, in a car or walking the streets? If your answer is YES please give reasons. <snip> No, because there is no legal obligation for pedestrians to wear a helmet. (Oops, I gave a reason, but I replied in the negative. Please don't taser me!!) I didn't see this on TV, but it sounds like both sides got a bit carried away, but the blame would most likely be with the idiot the police were talking too. If he had been a little less unreasonable, things would not have escalated.	johcar (6283)
870740	2010-03-29 04:32:00	No he didn't - he was a perfectly innocent person with no record. He was not innocent. By law he has to wear a helmet and he wasn't. The person insisted that he was not going to supply his name and he has to by law. If you don't agree with a law you take any consequences of not obeying. I think I should not have to wear a seat belt in a car but if I don't I can be whacked with a fine. After having been done twice for that I now wear the seat belt as I simply can't afford not to. Just what part of this don't you understand?	Sweep (90)
870741	2010-03-29 04:49:00	When they took him back to the Police Station he still said he didn't have to give his name etc. The Police quoted sections of the law where he did. He still refused, so they printed it out which he refused to read. :)	Trev (427)
870742	2010-03-29 04:51:00	The police would, no doubt, have been fresh from an encounter with a bunch of typical "Iceholes"- of which there are plenty!! Can you blame them?? I can't! Ken	kenj (9738)
870743	2010-03-29 06:41:00	I didn't see the article on TV. But the problem here, I reckon, is that women police think they have to be as macho as their male counterparts, and try to exercise their authority to an excessive degree. Female police should be relegated to duties which only involve involve female offenders.	Greg (193)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9