can they give your driving licence points for being naughty on your push
bike?...

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
can they give your driving licence points for being naughty on your
push bike?...

No. Cyclists are above the law.

Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
can they give your driving licence points for being naughty on your
push bike?...

No. Cyclists are above the law.

On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Â* Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.
what about my legal electric moped?.....

Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you
caused an accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century
like "Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is
specifically for *motorin*.
what about my legal electric moped?.....

**** off, pikey Jock troll.

On 01/09/2019 20:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you
caused an accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century
like "Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is
specifically for *motorin*.
what about my legal electric moped?.....

**** off, pikey Jock troll.


WHS

On 01/09/2019 20:46, mm0fmf wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you
caused an accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century
like "Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is
specifically for *motorin*.
what about my legal electric moped?.....

**** off, pikey Jock troll.


WHS


nothing to say about soiled gussets today chebs?.......

On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Â* Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Â* Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to have one suspended.

wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to
have one suspended.

I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.


--

Roger Hayter

On 02/09/2019 23:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to
have one suspended.

I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.


I'm a "doubting Thomas" who would need evidence to support your belief -
i.e. I'd want to know what legislation provides the power for a court to
"disqualify people for almost any offence". AFAIK it's only a
discretionary option if the legislation for the offence provides for it
(see section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended)).
And those are "endorsable offences" plus TWOC.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to
have one suspended.

I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.


In Australia they have taken car
license for dog offenses indirectly, people who have not paid fines

Robin wrote:

On 02/09/2019 23:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote: Well, that depends on
whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an accident then
I'd not want to lay any bets. Brian
Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to
have one suspended.

I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.


I'm a "doubting Thomas" who would need evidence to support your belief -
i.e. I'd want to know what legislation provides the power for a court to
"disqualify people for almost any offence". AFAIK it's only a
discretionary option if the legislation for the offence provides for it
(see section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended)).
And those are "endorsable offences" plus TWOC.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146

I must admit I thought it a little draconian at the time it was passed.
Mainly because it sets people up for further offences if they are
weak-willed even though there is not a driving element to their crime.




--

Roger Hayter

On 03/09/2019 09:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 02/09/2019 23:49, Roger Hayter wrote:

snip


I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.


I'm a "doubting Thomas" who would need evidence to support your belief -
i.e. I'd want to know what legislation provides the power for a court to
"disqualify people for almost any offence". AFAIK it's only a
discretionary option if the legislation for the offence provides for it
(see section 34 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (as amended)).
And those are "endorsable offences" plus TWOC.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146

I must admit I thought it a little draconian at the time it was passed.
Mainly because it sets people up for further offences if they are
weak-willed even though there is not a driving element to their crime.


Thanks. That had patently passed me by. No excuse. And I see now that
sentencing guidelines require it to be considered in fly-tipping cases.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.



Roger Hayter

that is what I thought .....and why I asked ...

On 02/09/2019 09:52, wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Â* Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to have one suspended.


Underr age teenagers caught TWOCing can have their license suspended as
soon as they apply for one.

On 01/09/2019 19:22, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
can they give your driving licence points for being naughty on your push
bike?...

Or even a pedal bike ?.

Mind you, most bikes need to be pushed in Scotland with all those
hills.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 01/09/2019 19:22, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
can they give your driving licence points for being naughty on your push
bike?...

Or even a pedal bike ?.

Mind you, most bikes need to be pushed in Scotland with all those
hills.

nah.....lecy power