If Scotland is sane, then what the cyclist is doing is actually illegal.

Where I live, there are laws governing the sorts of traffic allowed to use various kinds of roads, and to an extent, where on the roads they're allowed to operate when permitted at all.  Urban/suburban freeways are closed to unlicensed traffic that cannot maintain at least 45mph.  Rural highways, whether local, county, state, or federal may allow slow traffic, but that slow traffic may be constrained to the shoulder or the lane adjacent to the shoulder.  Everyone has the right to travel, and within the guise of what sorts of travel is allowed without requiring licensing/registration, those may operate on the roads.  So walkers, human-powered machines, small-engine machines, and sometimes even animal mounts are allowed as part of a recognized right to travel, but they're not to especially interfere with other users of the road even if only for their own safety and the safety of others.

Riding a bicycle in traffic is already dangerous where the speed limits are low and the cyclist might have the legal right to use the entire road.  Riding a bicycle on a limited-access freeway within the automobile travel lanes or even on rural highways in the middle is just stupid.  He's probably going to die if he keeps this up because at some point he's going to be too small to be noticed and someone's going to run him down.

Sexy Jesus: Not a true cyclist, he's not wearing a spandex uniform covered in logos. Probably not a true Scotsman either.

Like that's some kind of defense...

limeyfellow: TWX: If Scotland is sane, then what the cyclist is doing is actually illegal.

Where I live, there are laws governing the sorts of traffic allowed to use various kinds of roads, and to an extent, where on the roads they're allowed to operate when permitted at all.  Urban/suburban freeways are closed to unlicensed traffic that cannot maintain at least 45mph.  Rural highways, whether local, county, state, or federal may allow slow traffic, but that slow traffic may be constrained to the shoulder or the lane adjacent to the shoulder.  Everyone has the right to travel, and within the guise of what sorts of travel is allowed without requiring licensing/registration, those may operate on the roads.  So walkers, human-powered machines, small-engine machines, and sometimes even animal mounts are allowed as part of a recognized right to travel, but they're not to especially interfere with other users of the road even if only for their own safety and the safety of others.

Riding a bicycle in traffic is already dangerous where the speed limits are low and the cyclist might have the legal right to use the entire road.  Riding a bicycle on a limited-access freeway within the automobile travel lanes or even on rural highways in the middle is just stupid.  He's probably going to die if he keeps this up because at some point he's going to be too small to be noticed and someone's going to run him down.

It is illegal everywhere in the UK. Cyclists are not allowed on motorways by law. Neither are learner drivers, pedestrians, horse riders and riders of other animals.

Then this is what asset forfeiture laws should be used for.  The cyclist's bike should be confiscated since it was the direct instrument of violating the law.

Sexy Jesus: limeyfellow: TWX: If Scotland is sane, then what the cyclist is doing is actually illegal.

Where I live, there are laws governing the sorts of traffic allowed to use various kinds of roads, and to an extent, where on the roads they're allowed to operate when permitted at all.  Urban/suburban freeways are closed to unlicensed traffic that cannot maintain at least 45mph.  Rural highways, whether local, county, state, or federal may allow slow traffic, but that slow traffic may be constrained to the shoulder or the lane adjacent to the shoulder.  Everyone has the right to travel, and within the guise of what sorts of travel is allowed without requiring licensing/registration, those may operate on the roads.  So walkers, human-powered machines, small-engine machines, and sometimes even animal mounts are allowed as part of a recognized right to travel, but they're not to especially interfere with other users of the road even if only for their own safety and the safety of others.

Riding a bicycle in traffic is already dangerous where the speed limits are low and the cyclist might have the legal right to use the entire road.  Riding a bicycle on a limited-access freeway within the automobile travel lanes or even on rural highways in the middle is just stupid.  He's probably going to die if he keeps this up because at some point he's going to be too small to be noticed and someone's going to run him down.

It is illegal everywhere in the UK. Cyclists are not allowed on motorways by law. Neither are learner drivers, pedestrians, horse riders and riders of other animals.

Riders of other animals? What other animals do you people ride over there?

princhester: TWX:Then this is what asset forfeiture laws should be used for.  The cyclist's bike should be confiscated since it was the direct instrument of violating the law.

I've never understood why the level of financial punishment should be the value of the implement involved.  Shouldn't it be linked to the seriousness of the crime?  Why should a motorist lose the value of a car but a cyclist only the value of a bike?

The point should be to seizure of the instrument of the crime.  Use the bicycle to wilfully and intentionally block traffic and the bike should be fair game.  Use a car to engage in a sideshow for illegal exhibition of speed and the car should be subject to seizure.  The property being seized was fundamental to the crime itself.

This is why I object to cars being seized from someone engaging in the crime of to buy drugs for personal use or soliciting for paid sexual services.  The car is merely an otherwise legal conveyance.  Perhaps a vehicle used for smuggling of distribution-quantity of drugs would be another matter, but that could just as well be settled in-trial easily enough and retained as evidence until that trial concludes.

And as for things like cash, I don't believe that holding cash without some other charged crime should justify its seizure.  Cash is legal to possess.

princhester: TWX: princhester: TWX:Then this is what asset forfeiture laws should be used for.  The cyclist's bike should be confiscated since it was the direct instrument of violating the law.

I've never understood why the level of financial punishment should be the value of the implement involved.  Shouldn't it be linked to the seriousness of the crime?  Why should a motorist lose the value of a car but a cyclist only the value of a bike?

The point should be to seizure of the instrument of the crime.  Use the bicycle to wilfully and intentionally block traffic and the bike should be fair game.  Use a car to engage in a sideshow for illegal exhibition of speed and the car should be subject to seizure.  The property being seized was fundamental to the crime itself.

This is why I object to cars being seized from someone engaging in the crime of to buy drugs for personal use or soliciting for paid sexual services.  The car is merely an otherwise legal conveyance.  Perhaps a vehicle used for smuggling of distribution-quantity of drugs would be another matter, but that could just as well be settled in-trial easily enough and retained as evidence until that trial concludes.

And as for things like cash, I don't believe that holding cash without some other charged crime should justify its seizure.  Cash is legal to possess.

This all seems arbitrary to me and to have no real bearing on culpability or seriousness or proportionality.

Then it sounds like you are never going to understand.