Finally

In news:[email hidden],
Sniper8052(L96A1)

Quoted message said:

Consider this,

X - x - O - o

XX - xx - OO -

What comes next?

Dunno, but - OO - is two bald blokes on a tandem.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
Sniper8052(L96A1)

Quoted message said:

Consider this,

X - x - O - o

XX - xx - OO -

What comes next?

Dunno, but - OO - is two bald blokes on a tandem.

That is surely -O]O]- ?

roadie -0]-
mtb -0|-
recumbent -0]=
recumbent trike -OI= (damn, needs a serif font)
tourist 80]-
child on child seat oO]-
Two children dutch style o0o-

In news:[email hidden],
David Martin <[email hidden]> scribed:

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dunno, but - OO - is two bald blokes on a tandem.

That is surely -O]O]- ?

They're really going for it, and are leaning so far forwards the handlebars
are obscured.

Quoted message said:

roadie -0]-
mtb -0|-
recumbent -0]=
recumbent trike -OI= (damn, needs a serif font)
tourist 80]-
child on child seat oO]-
Two children dutch style o0o-

Star Wars:

|o|
|O|

Quoted message said:

<

Ant using a pogo stick in the snow:

o

o

o

o

o

o

..

Siamese twins having a smoke:

8=

You can blame my chum Samfast for these...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My only hope in life is to die before I get my comeuppence.

Response to Dave Larrington:

Sikh -@]-

Geek -+]-

Bobby Charlton -¤]-

--
Mark, UK
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."

-0]~ just hit something and pretzeled the front wheel..

0 Mr Colyer. (unicyclist)

Al C-F said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Consider this,

X - x - O - o

XX - xx - OO -

What comes next?

If you answer oo then you have made an assumption that there is a
pattern, a routine on which you can base an assumption. In police
work there is no such pattern

Rubbish.

If there is no pattern, there can be no training.

Twaddle of the first water old chap there can be no pattern as each
event has different participant subjects. That the events share common
legal precepts may make them similar in that respect but it does not
make a pattern that allows a predefined set of responses to be grafted
over it.

Sniper8052

Tom Crispin said:

And if you still think driving onto the pavement is safe for police
drivers, take a look at this picture.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/policewreck.jpg

And here's another crashed police car on the pavement. The crash
occurred at 5am on the edge of Blackheath. The young driver was
killed and his passenger seriously injured. Fortunately, at that time
of morning there are few people about, but just imagine if it had
happened in the daytime with children waiting at the bus stop and some
startled pensioner using the telephone kiosk.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/policewreck2.jpg

Tom,

Quoted message said:

...following reckless behaviour by police drivers, the
park manager has been forced to deny them access.

A very unfortunate and disheartening state of affairs. The behaviour of
the officers should certainly have been challenged by their BCU head and
the drivers warned as to their behaviour. It embarrasses me personally
when officers lower the reputation of the service by behaving in such a way.

However,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accidents do happen, and our pavements should be kept clear...

Could equally be used to justify the argument that children should not
be allowed to ride on the pavement and that changing the law to allow
them to do so would be a retrograde step. There are always the
exceptions that prove the rule was correct.

I doubt there have been many instances of police officers talking to
young (8 year old) cyclists about riding on the pavement under normal
circumstances. I would have even graver doubts that any legal action
has been taken against a child cyclist or parent purely on account of
them so riding so it becomes a bit of a moot point.

As police officers we allow a 'latitude of offence' to interpret the law
proportionately to the circumstance. Are you suggesting that if the rule
is law; that rule should be inflexible for one and not the other no
matter the circumstance?

I cannot think that you are for then police officers would have no
discretion and proportionality and justice would not be served.

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom,

Quoted message said:

...following reckless behaviour by police drivers, the
park manager has been forced to deny them access.

A very unfortunate and disheartening state of affairs. The behaviour of
the officers should certainly have been challenged by their BCU head and
the drivers warned as to their behaviour. It embarrasses me personally
when officers lower the reputation of the service by behaving in such a way.

However,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accidents do happen, and our pavements should be kept clear...

Could equally be used to justify the argument that children should not
be allowed to ride on the pavement and that changing the law to allow
them to do so would be a retrograde step. There are always the
exceptions that prove the rule was correct.

I think that there is a very good case for changing the law on
pavement cycling for young people. As you suggest below, children
under the age of 11 cannot be arrested for most misdemeanours, so the
law regarding them cycling on the pavement is largely overlooked.

Quoted message said:

I doubt there have been many instances of police officers talking to
young (8 year old) cyclists about riding on the pavement under normal
circumstances. I would have even graver doubts that any legal action
has been taken against a child cyclist or parent purely on account of
them so riding so it becomes a bit of a moot point.

As police officers we allow a 'latitude of offence' to interpret the law
proportionately to the circumstance. Are you suggesting that if the rule
is law; that rule should be inflexible for one and not the other no
matter the circumstance?

Again I agree with you. There must be some flexibility.

Quoted message said:

I cannot think that you are for then police officers would have no
discretion and proportionality and justice would not be served.

I do think that there are limits. Trained police drivers should be
allowed to exceed the speed limit for routine emergency calls, but
still a limit needs to be set to prevent recklessness. Perhaps 50%
above the normal limit would be acceptable without authority. In
exceptional circumstances and with authority from a senior officer a
higher limit might be set. And in normal circumstances driving on the
footway should not be allowed. Exceptions in unusual cases may be
allowed, again by a senior officer - in seige situations perhaps, or
to block an escape. But these should be exceptions, not the norm.

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but driving on the
pavement, like driving at 154mph on a motorway, oversteps the mark for
a reasonable response to an emergency call, except in very specific
and unusual circumstances.

Oh, FFS Tom stop pissing around here. Was the officer in question parking on
the pavement or was he bombing down it at speed, scattering people as he
went? Pulling onto the pavement to park isn't exactly dangerous if done with
appropriate care, so for an emergency isn't unreasonable.
(Note for anybody dim : this does not mean I think parking on the pavement
is a good thing).

Try not to alienate the plod - it doesn't help us.

clive

David Martin said:

0 Mr Colyer. (unicyclist)

|
O Novice unicyclist
|

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Clive George said:

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but driving on the
pavement, like driving at 154mph on a motorway, oversteps the mark for
a reasonable response to an emergency call, except in very specific
and unusual circumstances.

Oh, FFS Tom stop pissing around here. Was the officer in question parking on
the pavement or was he bombing down it at speed, scattering people as he
went? Pulling onto the pavement to park isn't exactly dangerous if done with
appropriate care, so for an emergency isn't unreasonable.

If it was a simple case of pulling onto the pavement to park I
wouldn't be making such an issue of it. This is a busy shopping area.

Here's an aerial photo with the fencing, bollards and position of the
police vehicle highlighted.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/parking.jpg

As this is clearly raising causing some tension it will be my last
post on the matter unless asked a direct question.

Quoted message said:

(Note for anybody dim : this does not mean I think parking on the pavement
is a good thing).

Try not to alienate the plod - it doesn't help us.

Tom Crispin said:

What sweets do children eat nowadays? Spangles seem to have gone, and
curly whirlies... And I can't recall the last time I saw pear drops
sold by the quarter - or even 113g!

They can all be obtained from Mardy's in Totton, a brilliant little
traditional sweet shop.
Yes they have flying saucers, liquorice wheels, sherbert dips and pineapple
cubes too :-)

I always make a visit when passing through.

John B

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Quoted message said:

Did the policeman deserve a ticket? Who'd give him one, or was he
above the law?

Here are some further examples of the Met setting a poor example.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdencyclists/sets/72157594270274995/show/

Tom Crispin said:

Here are some further examples of the Met setting a poor example.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdencyclists/sets/72157594270274995/show/

It looks like he got a bit upset about you taking photo's of a public
servant during the course of his duties. I hope he was polite to you at
all times.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"Lord, please make me the kind of person my dog thinks I am."

Don Whybrow said:

Tom Crispin said:

Here are some further examples of the Met setting a poor example.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdencyclists/sets/72157594270274995/show/

It looks like he got a bit upset about you taking photo's of a public
servant during the course of his duties. I hope he was polite to you at
all times.

It's nothing to do with me personally. I saw those pictures while
looking at the Camden Cyclists' Picture Gallery.