Lancashire police arrested and locked up a Blackpool cyclist for riding without lights last week, but when the case came to court the prosecution declined to proceed saying it was not in the public interest to do so.
Edward Copland, 38, was arrested by police when he was caught pedalling along a street-lit urban road in dark clothes and without lights on his bike, and according to a police spokesman refused to give his details – although this does not appear to be the charge on which Mr Copland went before the court.
After being taken to the local police station, processed and held in a cell, Mr Copland was released, and later issued with a court summons through the post.
Shop owner Mr Copland acknowledged his guilt and spoke to the Blackpool Gazette: “OK I did not have the lights on – but the hour had just changed on the clocks, normally it would have been light on my way home.”
As the case was put forward at Blackpool Magistrates Court, Crown Prosecutor Alison Quanbrough told the justices: “I must admit I was surprised to see this allegation brought to court. It would appear it was dark at the time and the defendant was wearing dark clothing. The police also say it was a dark coloured bike.
“However I do feel it is not in the public interest to continue and take this allegation any further.
“One does begin to wonder what is going on.”
The Magistrates withdrew the case before Mr Copland had the opportunity to plead guilty to the charges. After stepping down from the dock, the 38 year old bemoaned the ordeal, saying: “What a complete waste of public money. It must have costs thousands in police and court time to put me through this.”
According to a spokesperson from Lancashire Police Mr Copland refused to provide his details to the officer, and was subsequently arrested.
The shop owner from Blackpool isn’t alone in being caught out by the clocks going back. Police in Oxford issued 171 riders £50 fines in the space of three hours last Friday in a crackdown operation against light-less cyclists.
53 thoughts on “Lightless cyclist locked up by Lancashire Police”
Sounds like he was arrested
Sounds like he was arrested for not providing his details rather than for riding without lights…although that was obviously the reason he was stopped in the first place. If he’d just given his name and address he’d presumably have been given an on the spot fine (£50?)
I imagine the conversation
I imagine the conversation went something like this:-
Plod: ‘Allo ‘allo ‘allo, what ‘ave we ‘ere then? No lights after dark?
Mr Copland: Sorry officer, the clocks changed and I forgot about lights.
Plod: Well you’ll have to get off and walk the rest of the way.
Mr Copland: Ok officer.
Plod: I’ll give you a warning this time but if we catch you again you’ll get a ticket, now what’s your name?
Mr Copland: Is that really necessary?
Plod: If you refuse to give me your details then I’ll have to take you down the station.
Mr Copland: F off piggy.
Plod: That’s it, you’re nicked sonny Jim.
Nobody normally gets arrested for not having lights.
drfabulous0 wrote:I imagine
Your wonky imagination is contradicted by the fact the guy was arrested on the lights offence, not withholding name and not breach of peace. The police person is anonymous but you give them all the benefit of your doubt, despite his conduct being chastised by the magistrates. I have a chum who is a novice special constable in the police, not particularly open-minded about cyclists, bit power mad I’d say. None too bright. Once kicked a pigeon to death.
The article is contradicting
The article is contradicting itself. Cycling without lights is not an arrestable offence. Not providing details is. However once at the station, where he presumably provided details he should have been given a ticket. However the magistrate throwing it out with out applying at least the penalty for riding without lights and costs,basically makes a complete mockery of the law and allows everyone to get away with out lights!
Vikeonabike wrote:The article
The magistrate didn’t throw it out. The CPS lawyer just refused point blank to prosecute and dropped the prosecution like a hot brick. I assume on the basis that it is the CPS which has to defend the decision to prosecute. And the decision to prosecute also implies that the police were right to arrest a cyclist for a non-arrestable offence.
The police did not charge the cyclist with refusing to give details. They charged for not having lights on his bike. That is a fixed penalty offence. The “refusing to give details” comes from a police spokesman after the CPS showed them up by very publicly refusing to have anything to do with this nonsense.
The “refusing details” story is a post facto bit of face saving. That is an arrestable offence but he wasn’t charged with it.
So either he refused to give details and the police stupidly charged him with a non-arrestable minor fixed penalty offence. = Incompetence
or
They arrested him for a non-arrestable offence and charged him with it. = incompetence
oozaveared wrote:Vikeonabike
Just a quick line to correct your mistakes – the man was not charged with an offence, he was reported for summons BIG difference.
There is no such thing as an arrestable or non arrestable offence anymore. You can be arrested for any offence IF the circumstances warrant it. Here it was because the chap has declined to give his details therefore a fixed penalty, written warning or a summons cant be issused.
So if your going to shout your mouth off about incompetence please make sure you have the facts right. Cheers matey.
vbvb wrote: the police, not
Yeah, that’s a fair point.
Slightly misleading headline
Slightly misleading headline ?
a fine or an arrest won’t put
a fine or an arrest won’t put lights on the bike there and then so simply take the bike off them and let them make their way using some other method (walk, bus) and they can pick the bike up at the station on receipt of visually producing a set of lights for the aforementioned bike.
vbvb – please read the
vbvb – please read the article – “According to a spokesperson from Lancashire Police Mr Copland refused to provide his details to the officer, and was subsequently arrested.”
So he was arrested for not providing his name and address so either a ticket, summons or a written warning could be sent out and not for cycling without lights.
So do not give your details,
So do not give your details, they try and take you to court, it gets kicked out and you pay no £50 fine… Win win.
drfabulous0 – your cutting
drfabulous0 – your cutting and pasting leaves a little to be desired – you forgot the bit about a novice special constable 😉
The police only have the
The police only have the power to arrest you for not giving your name and address when asked, if:
– you are a driver of a vehicle on the road (and date of birth) or if involved in accident or road traffic offence whether in a car, on a bike or as a pedestrian. (|:
.
.
Not true I’m afraid. The law
Not true I’m afraid. The law was changed a few years back to make arresting for an offence ‘necessary’.
Potentially you can now be arrested for any offence (there is no arrestable or non arrestable offences any more) if one of several criteria apply that makes it necessary.
To establish the name and address of someone are two of those criteria.
So the rider in this case has committed an offence of riding a bike with no lights and as he refused details for an on the spot fine or summons to court, it makes his arrest ‘necessary’ for the matter to be dealt with – until it gets to court and they throw it out! 🙂
Its the same for every offence now from murder all the way down to riding with no lights – cops have to justify why the arrest was necessary, obvious in some cases, less so in others!
If you’ve been spotted by the
If you’ve been spotted by the plod committing an offence (or he has reasonable grounds to suspect you’ve committed an offence ) then plod has the legal power to require you to provide your name and address in order to carry out checks and if ne essary either report you for summons or issue a fixed penalty notice.
If you refuse to provide details of identity and address the plod can arrest you for the original offence, the arrest being necessary to ascertain identity (and in this case arguably public safety and to prevent further similar offences)
All easily avoided by either providing name and address (verifiable by some form of ID, checkable on PNC or the electoral roll, or even possibly a phone call to a relative) or even more easily by spending 20 quid on some LED lights that weigh virtually nowt, have long lasting batteries and may stop you from being pureed by some big truck……
Sometimes plod can be overzealous but usually a bit of contrition and commonsense goes a long way.
l think its about time the
l think its about time the police started dealing with people who ride with no lights / jump red lights / and ride on pavements . Putting them in the cells seams a good way of enforcing the point this behaviour is Unacceptable. It will make the roads safer for all of us when all cyclist obay the rules of the road.
There’s no excuse for having no lights and blaming the hour going back ? Come on its not as if its a surprise each year is it?
banzicyclist2 wrote:l think
Agreed, (sort of) but weres the resource coming from and can some of it firstly be used to stop car, van, truck drivers speeding, updating facebook profiles, texting, talking on mobiles, parking on pavements, parking outside schools etc.
All of which the consequences to third parties are much more serious than some bloke getting home late on a push bike.
banzicyclist2 wrote:l think
Did I read that right? No lights, riding on a footpath = being locked up
Whereas driving your car with no lights switched on would be a warning
defective lights would be a producer, speeding in your car is a fixed penalty, as is driving on the pavement.
Here are some facts for you
In 2010. 4 pedestrians were killed in collision with a cycle, while 76 were
injured – (in any location either on the road, pavement or in the countryside I can’t get a breakdown ).
The same year- 43 pedestrians were killed in collision with a vehicle on a footway (including cycles though there were only four in total anywhere and we don’t know if they were on the footway).
According to an FOI request by the CTC covering all of London for the period from 1998 to 2007 no pedestrian, none zipp, zilch, nada, not a one was killed in collision with a cyclist on a footway. For the same period in London 54 pedestrians were killed on footways in collision with motor vehicles (779 were seriously injured)
Now, tell me again who needs to be going to the cells?
Quite, I couldn’t agree
Quite, I couldn’t agree more.
And while we are at it, we should reintroduce the Birch for pavement parking and hanging for drunk driving, speeding, driving while using a handheld mobile phone, driving a car through a red traffic light etc etc.
They are a thin, blue line
They are a thin, blue line protecting us from the chaos and darkness that lies just outside the flickering lamplight. I for one salute them.
38 years old. Old enough to
38 years old. Old enough to know better, I would say.
I wonder if he drives too? Many moons ago I had a fairly lax attitude to lights, partly ‘cos they weighed a ton and the batteries lasted only a few days ( as well as the carefree impetuosity and naughtiness of youth) but also because I thought I could still be seen ok.
When I got round to getting my car and bike licences, and a car and a bike, I realised just how hard it can be to spot un-illuminated and camouflaged cyclists, especially on unlit roads.
I also remember frequently tensing up and waiting for the impact on my own 8 mile cycle commute back from work on an unlit road, despite bright orange coat and 3 rear lights when i heard something big or fast approaching from behind.
I have been lucky and never hit any cyclists (lit or unlit) whilst driving, but I doubt that the knowledge of their contributory negligence would salve my conscience if I put someone in hospital ‘cos I didn’t see them until it was too late.
Maybe this is a degree of empathy and enlightenment that Mr38 yr old shopkeeper has yet to acquire.
his mistake was stopping in
his mistake was stopping in the first place!!!
thats a joke btw 😉
Fine them £30 and give them
Fine them £30 and give them some decent lights in return. Win-win.
MrGear wrote:Fine them £30
£50 now, £30 clearly wasn’t a sufficient deterrent for these hardened criminals. Definitely all for ‘lights instead of fines’ schemes though!
Maybe a good solution is for
Maybe a good solution is for the police to team up with a bike shop and then do a ‘stop and fit or get a fine’ initiative.
The police would get to enforce the law in a way that’s friendly and helpful, cyclists get lit up properly and it would also save money on handing out then rescinding fines. A local bike shop would do a decent trade as well.
If any cyclists refused to fit lights, then fine them for being a dickhead.
I do wonder how many drivers
I do wonder how many drivers get pulled up for wonky or no lights. I see plenty every time I go out with either just fog+sidelights, faulty bulbs, or completely buggered electrics.
There is no excuse for cycling without lights, but the Police do seem to go for the easy option all the time.
Also this case does seem strange in that it got all the way to the court room before someone saw sense. I do suspect plod overstepped a mark by quite a degree here
I wonder whether the Police
I wonder whether the Police officer concerned and custody Sergeant that didn’t query the offence oughtn’t to be charged with wasting police time. At the very least they ought to be docked the wages for the time spent on this.
Well, I’m no legal expert as
Well, I’m no legal expert as most above seem to be, but I’d like to be the first to say “Bravo” to the Crown Prosecutor for displaying that all too rare quality of common sense.
There’s no obligation to
There’s no obligation to accept a fixed penalty. That’s an admission of guilt. Feel free to admit guilt if appropriate (and in this case I’d imagine it was) but don’t do so automatically.
Stumps, wouldn’t you like the
Stumps, wouldn’t you like the idea of marching such a cyclist down to the nearest LBS and making the offender by a new set of lights (regardless of whether he has any).
It would save time, put money into the local economy and serve as both a deterrent and safety measure.
Colin Peyresourde
Yes, i completely agree.
was he arrested for refusing
was he arrested for refusing to provide his details or riding without lights. I get that the cops give a hard time to people who are being “difficult” but this seems extreme to put it mildly
Whereas a FP for riding
Whereas a FP for riding without lights seems a ‘fair cop’ I’d rather see a fine vs lights scheme used.
As for failing to give details: the police have no right to ask a cyclist to do so any more than they do a pedestrian in the normal course of going about their business. That, and it’s something the police have tried elsewhere, only applies to those driving vehicles.
IHphoto wrote:Whereas a FP
If you commit an offence, regardless of how minor it is, we can ask for your details. Dont give them and your likely to be arrested, simples.
Not true so don’t try it.
Not true so don’t try it. You have to provide your details in many more situations than driving a vehicle. This case is a good example!
I haven’t read all the
I haven’t read all the comments so sorry if it has been covered already.
The police do not have the power to arrest anyone for breaking the law. S24A of PACE which grants police officers powers of arrest state arrest can only be used if certain criteria are filled. Some of these are name not known or doubted.
However, what S24a PACE did create was the power to arrest for ANY offence if the criteria are filled.
So the suspect here will likely have refused his details following committing the offence of riding without lights during hours of darkness. He will have been stopped by officers legitimately.
The unofficial attitude test would have taken place. I.e do you know why you have been stopped, yes officer I hae no lights I’m sorry I’ll walk home. No problem thanks very much. Or… What more likely happened here. Do you know why you have been stopped. Because you’ve nothing better to do? Etc etc. Officer points out the offence and advises to provide details for issue of ticket / summons ( completely legitimately ) and details are refused or clearly wrong (I.e I’m Mickey Mouse of mouse land ). Final warning to cooperate given, and then arrests are made because the ante has been upped and the officer is left with no choice.
That being said, as soon as the necessity for arrest ceases, the power does to. Ok officer I’m sorry my name is john smith here’s my id. Right off you go.
To go ahead with a prosecution should only be reserved for the more sinister members of our society and those that are doing their best to evade justice. Seems excessive in these circumstances, but then we only have what is reported.
Can elaborate further re PACE etc if anyone was interested.
Sincerely doubt it mind!
Sswindells wrote:Final
Biggest problem with this is that officers are also trained / learn how to escalate the situation at will to reach an ‘arrestable’ situation. It’s going to be most useful against soft targets, who won’t later file a complaint about the arrest.
The whole story stinks.
Sswindells – i disagree with
Sswindells – i disagree with your final paragraph –
“To go ahead with a prosecution should only be reserved for the more sinister members of our society and those that are doing their best to evade justice.”
The law is there for a reason and just because your generally mr or mrs cannybody does not mean you dont get prosecuted.
If you break the law then you have to suffer the consequences whatever they maybe. It may sound a bit draconian but we are now to soft on people who break the law and thats why the country is in such a mess.
stumps wrote:Sswindells – i
Yes. It’s a clever bit of policing to tie up a cell and who knows how many man hours because some berk decided to ride without lights and not give his name. More policing like this is desperately needed, especially because it shows off the constabulary to the best possible advantage w.r.t. to public relations.
stumps wrote:If you break the
I’d argue we’re far too soft on career criminals, who know how to play the game with the police and CPS. The average person doesn’t, and what should be a non-issue can then turn into a life-changing encounter with the justice system.
Stopped for no lights –
Stopped for no lights – offence, fair enough. The Police have a few options I’d say. Advise, gain co-operation and get the guy to walk, or deal formally with offence by way of ticket. If the Police do nothing and the cyclist carries on riding and gets killed just up the road in a vehicle collision….. well the consequences are not good for the Police.
I dont go with this whole attitude test thing, I reckon most Police decide what they are going to do before they engage the person, you know being impartial and all that… I’d be utterly disappointed if that were the case and the norm. So it looks like the officer decided the formal method – issue a ticket. Thats the officers call and we should not judge them on it. The cyclist fails to give his details necessary for the ticket. The officer has no choice in that case – the Police cannot back down and nor would I want them to. Its actually the cyclist that is now dictating what move the Police have to do next. The cyclist might have refused the ticket. Either way he gets nabbed for failing to give details so that he could have be summonsed. If the cyclist was being gobby then the Police would have nabbed him for that I would suggest.
So he’s locked up in a Police cell. The Police now have to deal with him. How, exactly? What are their options? They can release him without charge. Having established his details at the station they could release him after reporting him for summons which is what appears to have happened. I’m not sure why he went to court, maybe he refused to accept a caution, or a penalty notice and there was no other option, or not all options were considered because of the circumstances in the station. I would also suggest that if he had a legal representative at the station they can often give bad advice, such going “no comment” if interviewed or not saying anything other than confirming identity. I do agree that its not the best offence to take to court, but if this cyclist has been very awkward sometimes the Police have to go down a course of action that they even find themselves cringing over.
The Police always release press statements that are very, very carefully considered – they have to because of potential litigation. The press can be a monster if not treated with care. The Police never reveal the full story or go into detail because of this and very often I’m sure they’d love to shout, “Hang on a minute this is what actually happened, so wind yer feckin necks in!” But they can’t and always take unfair and unwaranted criticism as a result, which they take on the chin, keep calm and carry on.
I am personally a little miffed by the CPS lawyers comments when nearly all of the time its the CPS who get it wrong. There are also ways of doing things to resolve matters that does not involve the blame game, which is how this looks.
Critchio wrote:Stopped for no
Fab reply mate, someone with a bit of common sense =D>
CPS – Can’t Prosecute S***e!
CPS – Can’t Prosecute S***e! Great post, well considered and thank goodness there are people like you out there!
Question: a week ago I
Question: a week ago I started my commute home and my front light battery died. So I cycled most of the way back with only a rear light. I did feel like a twat.
Well my question is, in that case could I be fined? Is it just for riding “without” lights, does the fact that I have a non-functional light attached mitigate anything?
eurotrash wrote:Question: a
Personally speaking i would give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to change your battery asap, pointing out the possible ramifications ie accident and to be careful on the way home.
You would end up being a happy chap having been spoken to politely and left with some honest advice.
Off the top of my head there is an offence called “lights, not in proper working order” which would cover what you described, however i’m not sure if this only applies to motor vehicles. Its under the road traffic act (construction and use section) if you really want to get mindnumbingly bored and read up about it.
eurotrash, I would expect a
eurotrash, I would expect a dead light to be the same as no light. The prospect of finding myself in the same predicament is why I now carry small backup lights (Electron Backupz, Aldi had some recently, about £4?) at this time of year.
Ok thanks Stumps and Simon.
Ok thanks Stumps and Simon. As it happens my front light is USB rechargeable and has a warning light when the battery is low, so I should have been able to avoid the situation… I simply forgot to recharge it at work. Might be a good idea to carry a cheapo spare with me nevertheless.
Tesco have a front and rear
Tesco have a front and rear light pack for a couple of quid, they are just a single led in a rubberised shell that you wrap around the seat post / handlebars.
Like Simon mentioned i keep a couple of these in my backpack in case of an emergency and they weigh next to nothing.
The main thing people are
The main thing people are missing with this is the fact he is in Blackpool and was being nicked for not having any illumination.
Blackpool.
Illuminations.
Ah, feck it, pearls before swine…
Sad that having got to court
Sad that having got to court they couldn’t process it with a quick and well deserved fine. The Police should have known better that it was not in the public interest to pursue from an earlier stage and issued a caution.
Either way, this is the guy who (when I’m driving my car) puts me in the awkward position of perhaps maiming or killing someone else who can’t be bothered taking some responsibility for his own well-being and expects everyone else to take account of him. What a prat!
Given how exceedingly bright
Given how exceedingly bright and all pervasive street lights are now, it doesn’t actually seem to me to be a major problem to ride a cycle without lights (in most urban settings). This feels like a piece of legislation that was relevant in the 1970s, but isn’t really appropriate now.
I have cycled in other parts of the world, and it makes you realise how much the night has been abolished in UK cities.
I have several sets of the cheap lights from Tescos for emergencies (but please note they don’t meet the legal requirements, so technically you could still be stopped, and be issued with a fixed penalty, or even be arrested and appear in court if you don’t give your name and address). Lets hope most PCs can use their common sense. Problem is of course you probably will have forgotten to carry them on the day/night you need them, and you can’t leave them on the bike as they always get nicked by kids.
Personally I favour hub dynamos and LED lights with stand light features. Pretty reliable, much less likely to get nicked, and legally compliant. Unlike the old bulb dynamo lights the LED ones rarely fail, and are much brighter.
Enjoyed some of these
Enjoyed some of these comments so much i have included them in :
Skippi-Cyclist.blogspot.com =D>