A Positive Image for Cyclists

MatSav said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4528463.stm

Cyclists are people too!

MatSav said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4528463.stm

--
MatSav

Whilst it is always good to see cyclists mentioned in a good light, I
doubt very much if this case had anything to do with the rescuer being
on a bike.

It sounds as if he were a simply a member of that fast disappearing
group of people who feel a responsibility towards those in distress.

Cyclists are not a breed apart [1].

[1] excepting pavement cyclists.

John B

JohnB said:

MatSav said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4528463.stm

--
MatSav

Whilst it is always good to see cyclists mentioned in a good light, I
doubt very much if this case had anything to do with the rescuer being
on a bike.

I don't know about that. Drivers have a tendancy to be going by so fast
that they don't bother to stop. That, and some of them actually pay
attention to the road ahead of them rather than people in the ocean off
to one side. I strongly suspect that if the cyclist hadn't have
stopped to help, nobody else would have done.

R.

Richard said:

I don't know about that. Drivers have a tendancy to be going by
so fast that they don't bother to stop. That, and some of them
actually pay attention to the road ahead of them rather than people
in the ocean off to one side. I strongly suspect that if the
cyclist hadn't have stopped to help, nobody else would have done.

I'm just amazed no-one pinched his bike while he was in the sea.

--
Dave...

MatSav said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4528463.stm#

"The cyclist, who is thought to be 19 and a local, left the scene
shortly after the rescue."

He probably legged it in case the couple suffered bruising from their
rescue and he was sued for assault.

On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:11:15 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4528463.stm#

"The cyclist, who is thought to be 19 and a local, left the scene
shortly after the rescue."

He probably legged it in case the couple suffered bruising from their
rescue and he was sued for assault.

Or was worried that the police would turn up and adopt their usual
anti-cyclist approach.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

Or was worried that the police would turn up and adopt their usual
anti-cyclist approach.

What anti-cyclist approach is that?

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

Carol Hague Jan 31 2001, 9:01 pm show options

Quoted message said:

Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:02:08 +0000

OK, it's now official, the world's gone mad....

Last Wednesday Rob was shunted from behind by a car. Not serious, no
damage to trike or rider except that his foot was run over by the
departing car. Duly reported to the police, though unfortunately he
only got part of the registration number.

This morning, the police came to his office and arrested him for
criminal damage on the car, claiming he'd smashed the windscreen and
sod knows what else... They kept him in a cell for two hours before
interviewing him. He is now out on bail.

I can understand that they'd want to interview him and get his side
of the story, but arresting him on the word of the other person
seems a trifle....extreme.

But then I'm a dangerous subversive who doesn't own a car, so what
do I know ?

An interesting thread (although, if you hadn't snipped the thread subject line
it would have been easier to find).

Unfortunatley the thread ends (at least on google) without the final outcome
being known.

A bit like those idiotic newspaper editors who print all the details of an
interesting case and end it with "the case continues", without never print the
outcome.

Tilly said:

MatSav said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4528463.stm#

"The cyclist, who is thought to be 19 and a local, left the scene
shortly after the rescue."

He probably legged it in case the couple suffered bruising from their
rescue and he was sued for assault.

Maybe the bike was nicked.

Colin

Paul D said:

Unfortunatley the thread ends (at least on google) without the final
outcome being known.

IIRC charges were dropped on the steps of the court when the driver
realised Rob had brought his trike along and would be able to
demonstrate that the alleged attack was physically impossible. AFAIK no
action was taken against the evil driver. I'm sure Carol will be along
to correct me if I'm mistaken, or to elaborate as necessary.

--
Dave...

On Tue, 10 May 2005 09:19:40 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Paul D) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

An interesting thread (although, if you hadn't snipped the thread subject line
it would have been easier to find).

Apologies.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunatley the thread ends (at least on google) without the final outcome
being known.

Further use of a search engine will produce the other threads which,
as I indicated, continue the story.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

Further use of a search engine will produce the other threads which,
as I indicated, continue the story.

I don't mind doing a bit of googling, and even using the advanced search feature
to find something, I've found "Update on Rob's busy day", but once again, the
thread ends before the end of the story.

Also, the web site mentioned by Carol does not seem to be there.

One point, a couple of people said that the police don't have to tell you what
evidence they have against you.

For a court case THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY FALSE.

They must provide you with all the evidence they plan to use.

If there was no more evidence than the word of the driver, I would have thought
that they should have made a formal complaint of misconduct against the
arresting officer, if not brought a case of wrongful arrest. Although it's hard
to tell without knowing the full details.

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul D

(') said:

David Hansen said:

Further use of a search engine will produce the other threads which,
as I indicated, continue the story.

I don't mind doing a bit of googling, and even using the advanced
search feature to find something, I've found "Update on Rob's busy
day", but once again, the thread ends before the end of the story.

Also, the web site mentioned by Carol does not seem to be there.

The wayback machine is your friend:

<URL:http://web.archive.org/web/20030903183216/http://www.wr.hpv.co.uk/update/>

Quoted message said:

If there was no more evidence than the word of the driver, I would
have thought that they should have made a formal complaint of
misconduct against the
arresting officer, if not brought a case of wrongful arrest. Although
it's hard to tell without knowing the full details.

I should have thought so to. A sharp complaint to the police authority
would seem to have been in order.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ Disclaimer:  This is a work displacement exercise.  Please feel free ]
[ to reply either on or off group.  Expect lengthy replies until the ]
[ deadline has passed.  Thank-you for your cooperation. ]

On Tue, 10 May 2005 11:39:08 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Paul D) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I don't mind doing a bit of googling, and even using the advanced search feature
to find something, I've found "Update on Rob's busy day", but once again, the
thread ends before the end of the story.

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?as_q=rob&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=carol+hague&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=10&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
produces as the first result:

================================================================

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (Carol Hague)
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:42:18 +0000
Subject: Rob's Court Case Update

Rob's second appearance at the Magistrate's Court was today, and I'm
very happy to say that the prosecution have withdrawn the charges
against him. We were very pleased to hear this, particularly as our
solicitor seemed to think it would go to trial.

Thanks to everyone who posted or emailed helpful and/or supportive
messages - it's been a stressful time for us and it's all
appreciated greatly.

================================================================

Quoted message said:

One point, a couple of people said that the police don't have to tell you what
evidence they have against you.

For a court case THIS IS MOST DEFINITELY FALSE.

They must provide you with all the evidence they plan to use.

I have no idea about England, where this took place. In Scotland the
police and fiscal rascals certainly do not reveal things which they
later rely on in court.

Quoted message said:

If there was no more evidence than the word of the driver, I would have thought
that they should have made a formal complaint of misconduct against the
arresting officer, if not brought a case of wrongful arrest.

Really.

The police and CPS bunch have mounted a malicious prosecution and
the person who has been treated in this way should try and get the
police and CPS bunch to deal with one of their own. Ha, ha.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

I don't mind doing a bit of googling, and even using the advanced search feature
to find something, I've found "Update on Rob's busy day", but once again, the
thread ends before the end of the story.

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?as_q=rob&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=carol+hague&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=10&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
produces as the first result:

Naturally, that 248-character string was the first thing I thought of
typing into my web browser. :-)

R.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:02:00 +0100 someone who may be Richard
<[email hidden]> wrote
this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?as_q=rob&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=carol+hague&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=10&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
produces as the first result:

Naturally, that 248-character string was the first thing I thought of
typing into my web browser. :-)

Ha, ha.

However, putting it into a web browser does come up with the results
of my search (at least for the moment) and the (fairly simple) terms
which I used to produce those results.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

The police and CPS bunch have mounted a malicious prosecution and
the person who has been treated in this way should try and get the
police and CPS bunch to deal with one of their own. Ha, ha.

If you make a serious complaint against the police, the matter is dealt with by
the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. I'm surprised you haven't heard of
them, even if you do live so far North as to be beyond the bounds of
civilisation!

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:02:00 +0100 someone who may be Richard
<[email hidden]> wrote
this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?as_q=rob&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=carol+hague&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=10&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off
produces as the first result:

Naturally, that 248-character string was the first thing I thought of
typing into my web browser. :-)

Ha, ha.

However, putting it into a web browser does come up with the results
of my search (at least for the moment) and the (fairly simple) terms
which I used to produce those results.

That's the problem with google.

You can usually find what you're looking for with a fairly simple search.

It's knowing *which* fairly simple search out of the millions of possible fairly
simple searches you need to use to find it ;-)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:34:51 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Paul D) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

If you make a serious complaint against the police, the matter is dealt with by
the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission.

If I make such a complaint that is unlikely, unless it is with
respect to something that happened in England or Wales. A quick scan
of their web site does not reveal whether they deal just with "Home
Office" forces or all police forces operating in England and Wales,
I'll assume the latter in the absence of information.

From http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/about_ipcc/new_system.htm I read
the following:

"Most complaints continue to be investigated by the local police.
However, local forces are now required to meet strict new IPCC
standards.

"A number of investigations into serious issues are run by the
IPCC's own investigators. These may include incidents such as death
in custody.

"IPCC investigators, in certain circumstances, have full police
powers and rights of access to premises, documents and other
evidence when requested.

"For the first time, a person making a complaint has the right to
appeal to the IPCC if they feel they have not been given sufficient
information by the police or they are unhappy with the outcome of an
investigation by the police."

the most important part of which is the first sentence, "Most
complaints continue to be investigated by the local police."

They certainly don't deal with the CPS.

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised you haven't heard of them,

I have heard of them. Whether they are effective, unlike their
various predecessors, remains to be seen. Until they sort out things
like the murder of Harry Stanley they remain on probation in my
view.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.