Cyclists win police court battle!



In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
> > says...
> >
> >
> >>And what's the motorists' excuse for their vastly more frequent
> >>infringments of road laws and parking regulations?
> >>
> >
> > It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
> > on the vehicle.
> >
> > Cyclists get away with it because it is nigh on impossible to identify
> > them.
> >
>
> Your answer fails to address the question in any coherent manner. Care
> to try again?
>
It doesn't fail at all.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:59:58 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It doesn't fail at all.

Yes it does.

You claim a lack of a licence is the reason why some cyclists ride
through red lights or use the pavements.

While not in agreement with your argument, I asked what the motorists'
excuse is for their more frequent infringements of laws and
regulations.

You have, so far, failed to give anything resembling an excuse.
 
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:08:29 +0100 someone who may be Conor
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
>on the vehicle.

Really.

Experience indicates otherwise. The police tend to go out of their
way to excuse the person with a registration plate on their vehicle.

Rather they tend to persecute the person without a registration
plate on their vehicle, for reasons one may guess at. A fairly well
known example of the latter can be found at
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?a...s_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling

While that sort of idiot is in the police force they will have zero
credibility.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:59:58 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >It doesn't fail at all.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> You claim a lack of a licence is the reason why some cyclists ride
> through red lights or use the pavements.
>
I'm saying the lack of a registration plate and registration system
means they're less likely to get caught.


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
says...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:08:29 +0100 someone who may be Conor
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
> >on the vehicle.
>
> Really.
>
> Experience indicates otherwise. The police tend to go out of their
> way to excuse the person with a registration plate on their vehicle.
>
GATSO, Red Light Camera.


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
 
David Hansen wrote:

> Conor <[email protected]> wrote:

>>It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
>>on the vehicle.

> Really.

A good word. We'll return to it.

> Experience indicates otherwise. The police tend to go out of their
> way to excuse the person with a registration plate on their vehicle.

> Rather they tend to persecute the person without a registration
> plate on their vehicle, for reasons one may guess at. A fairly well
> known example of the latter can be found at
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?a...s_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling
> While that sort of idiot is in the police force they will have zero
> credibility.

Checking out that Google reference, one comes across another old Usenet
thread where someone who may be David Hansen said (and I quote verbatim):

STARTQUOTE:
The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
six people, one very badly.
ENDQUOTE

Now... a case of driving along a pavement (he means a footway, but we'll
let that pass) and injuring six people is pretty bad, isn't it?

The trouble is, it didn't happen. The person who may be David Hansen simply
made it up, as is very obvious is you take a look at the BBC news item. It
contains this:

STARTQUOTE:
Det Supt Glyn Jones said it appeared the car had gone on the wrong side of
the road then, as it cut back, lost control, mounted the pavement and hit
the pedestrians.
ENDQUOTE

Bad?Yes, of course. But not *quite* the same thing as "driving along the
pavement", eh?

In fact, there isn't any evidence that the vehicle moved along the length
of the footway (as opposed to across its width) at all.

So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that "a
motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
connection with reality. Really.
 
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:19:26 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> You claim a lack of a licence is the reason why some cyclists ride
>> through red lights or use the pavements.
>>
>I'm saying the lack of a registration plate and registration system
>means they're less likely to get caught.

OK. So you explain the small number of traffic light and pavment
abuses by cyclists as a lack of a licence and registration system.

That still doesn't explain motor vehicle drivers' far more frequent
law breaking and parking regulations' infringments. How do you
explain it? It's a straightforward question, and it's OK to say
you're nonplussed if you don't have an explaination.
 
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:19:46 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
>says...
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:08:29 +0100 someone who may be Conor
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>> >It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
>> >on the vehicle.
>>
>> Really.
>>
>> Experience indicates otherwise. The police tend to go out of their
>> way to excuse the person with a registration plate on their vehicle.
>>
>GATSO, Red Light Camera.

Both fantastic innovations to reduce road crime by licensed motorists.

GATSO cameras, apart from the Royal Parks, are irrelevant to cyclists'
proscecutions.
 
On 2006-06-30, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>
>> Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
>>>on the vehicle.
>
>> Really.
>
> A good word. We'll return to it.
>
>> Experience indicates otherwise. The police tend to go out of their
>> way to excuse the person with a registration plate on their vehicle.
>
>> Rather they tend to persecute the person without a registration
>> plate on their vehicle, for reasons one may guess at. A fairly well
>> known example of the latter can be found at
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?a...s_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.rec.cycling
>> While that sort of idiot is in the police force they will have zero
>> credibility.
>
> Checking out that Google reference, one comes across another old Usenet
> thread where someone who may be David Hansen said (and I quote verbatim):
>
> STARTQUOTE:
> The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
> are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
> face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
> motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
> six people, one very badly.
> ENDQUOTE
>
> Now... a case of driving along a pavement (he means a footway, but we'll
> let that pass) and injuring six people is pretty bad, isn't it?
>
> The trouble is, it didn't happen. The person who may be David Hansen simply
> made it up, as is very obvious is you take a look at the BBC news item. It
> contains this:
>
> STARTQUOTE:
> Det Supt Glyn Jones said it appeared the car had gone on the wrong side of
> the road then, as it cut back, lost control, mounted the pavement and hit
> the pedestrians.
> ENDQUOTE
>
> Bad?Yes, of course. But not *quite* the same thing as "driving along the
> pavement", eh?
>
> In fact, there isn't any evidence that the vehicle moved along the length
> of the footway (as opposed to across its width) at all.
>
> So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that "a
> motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
> connection with reality. Really.

That's excellent, thank you.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that "a
>>motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
>>connection with reality. Really.

> A very poor photo, I know, but how do you suppose these cars got where
> they are?

> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/PAVEMENT.JPG

I don't know how that photograph came to be taken - but is that a road
where parking on the footway is allowed/encouraged or one where it is not?
There are, as you well know, both sorts. And in any event, parking on a
footway is not the same thing as "driving along it" (if it were, the roads
where parking on the footway is lawful would be pointless, wouldn't they?).

As it happens, I drive on the footway every time I leave home for a journey
of any length. It simply isn't illegal - is it?

What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a car being driven *along*
the footway in the manner of a typical bike, swerving around pedestrians,
shooting past driveway entrances without being prepared to stop and give
way, etc.

We've had all this before, but deceitful disinformation like Hansen's has
to be challenged (as has any suggestion that maneouvring is the same as
making progress as part of a journey).
 
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:40:16 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that "a
>>>motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
>>>connection with reality. Really.
>
>> A very poor photo, I know, but how do you suppose these cars got where
>> they are?
>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/PAVEMENT.JPG
>
>I don't know how that photograph came to be taken - but is that a road
>where parking on the footway is allowed/encouraged or one where it is not?

The photograph came to be taken by me going outside my front door and
taking it. Parking on the footway is not allowed or encouraged

>There are, as you well know, both sorts. And in any event, parking on a
>footway is not the same thing as "driving along it" (if it were, the roads
>where parking on the footway is lawful would be pointless, wouldn't they?).
>
>As it happens, I drive on the footway every time I leave home for a journey
>of any length. It simply isn't illegal - is it?
>
>What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a car being driven *along*
>the footway in the manner of a typical bike, swerving around pedestrians,
>shooting past driveway entrances without being prepared to stop and give
>way, etc.

What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a bicycle being
ridden *onto* the footway in the manner of a typical car, mounting the
kerb at left turn junctions, cracking pavestones with wanton abandon,
and parking without consideration to the disabled and those with
prams.
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:36:21 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that "a
> >motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
> >connection with reality. Really.
>
> A very poor photo, I know, but how do you suppose these cars got where
> they are?
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/PAVEMENT.JPG

Or this one
http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/drivingonpavemen.html

John B
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that "a
>>>>motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
>>>>connection with reality. Really.

>>>A very poor photo, I know, but how do you suppose these cars got where
>>>they are?

>>>http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/PAVEMENT.JPG

>>I don't know how that photograph came to be taken - but is that a road
>>where parking on the footway is allowed/encouraged or one where it is not?

> The photograph came to be taken by me going outside my front door and
> taking it. Parking on the footway is not allowed or encouraged

Then report them.

But I guess that many of them are your neighbours?

Difficult...

>>There are, as you well know, both sorts. And in any event, parking on a
>>footway is not the same thing as "driving along it" (if it were, the roads
>>where parking on the footway is lawful would be pointless, wouldn't they?).

>>As it happens, I drive on the footway every time I leave home for a journey
>>of any length. It simply isn't illegal - is it?

>>What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a car being driven *along*
>>the footway in the manner of a typical bike, swerving around pedestrians,
>>shooting past driveway entrances without being prepared to stop and give
>>way, etc.

> What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a bicycle being
> ridden *onto* the footway in the manner of a typical car,

You are wrong. I have ridden my bike thus onto the footway (and thus into
my driveway) many times. My neighbour has often done the same.

Is there something wrong with it?

> mounting the kerb at left turn junctions,

Oh... I have frequently seen bikes do much *worse* than that at junctions.

Yesterday, I was waiting at a traffic light junction - at a T junction,
heading across the "T". A woman on a bike came up behind me (the lights
were red) and she simply rode onto the footway and cycled off into the
distance, on the footway, steering round pedestrians, etc. This was an
ordinary footway which had not been vandalises so as to provide an alleged
"cycle lane".

That woman should have waited at the traffic lights - shouldn't she?

OTOH, I do occasionally see bike-riders behave properly at traffic lights.
And every time I have seen it since I got internet access, I have mentioned
it on usenet. It must amount to... ooh... at least several times by now
(since the late 1990s).

> cracking pavestones with wanton abandon

Come to think of it, I haven't seen that, any more than I (or you) have
ever seen a car do it. A bus might though. Or a lorry.

> and parking without consideration to the disabled and those with
> prams.

The old ones are the best, eh?
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a car being driven
*along*
> the footway in the manner of a typical bike, swerving around pedestrians,
> shooting past driveway entrances without being prepared to stop and give
> way, etc.
>

I suspect that it is physical obstruction that prevents this, rather than
any consideration due to legislation or to the well-being of pedestrians;
and that, were drivers of motorcars to behave in a civil maner towards
cyclists, they would more frequently use the road surface and less
frequently the pavement.
 
jtaylor wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>What I have never seen (and neither have you) is a car being driven
>>*along* the footway in the manner of a typical bike, swerving around
>>pedestrians, shooting past driveway entrances without being prepared
>>to stop and give way, etc.

> I suspect that it is physical obstruction that prevents this, rather than
> any consideration due to legislation or to the well-being of pedestrians;

Grow up.

> and that, were drivers of motorcars to behave in a civil maner towards
> cyclists, they would more frequently use the road surface and less
> frequently the pavement.

Don't blame the victims (people like me - pedestrian for a greater part of
the time) for the transgressions of the offenders (cyclists who casually
endanger victims for their own benefit).

You don't "suspect" any of that at all. You know what everyone knows - the
footway cyclists are just bloody selfish - happy to pose a danger to others.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> You don't "suspect" any of that at all. You know what everyone knows
> - the footway cyclists are just bloody selfish - happy to pose a
> danger to others.

So, no different to most car drivers then?
 
"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:36:21 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So when a fantasist like the person who may be David Hansen claims that
>> >"a
>> >motorist [was] driving along a pavement", we all know that he has no
>> >connection with reality. Really.
>>
>> A very poor photo, I know, but how do you suppose these cars got where
>> they are?
>>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/PAVEMENT.JPG
>
> Or this one
> http://freespace.virgin.net/jpb.design/drivingonpavemen.html
>
> John B
>
Careful, John.... whilst I don't condone driving on pavements, one can CROSS
a pavement to gain access to off-road areas, (otherwise I couldn't park in
my drive!!) and those businesses in College Place at the top of London Road
do tend to have private forecourts on the front where once upon a time there
were gardens. It is difficult to see the demarcation (often). True, in your
photo, the car IS overhanging the pavement proper a fair bit... Further up
LunnunRoad, several businesses employ the Security International scumbags to
enforce their bit of forecourt/pavement...
 
Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:

>>You don't "suspect" any of that at all. You know what everyone knows
>>- the footway cyclists are just bloody selfish - happy to pose a
>>danger to others.

> So, no different to most car drivers then?

Do very many car drivers routinely make their way on the footway on your
planet?

It's different here.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>
>>> You don't "suspect" any of that at all. You know what everyone knows
>>> - the footway cyclists are just bloody selfish - happy to pose a
>>> danger to others.
>
>> So, no different to most car drivers then?
>
> Do very many car drivers routinely make their way on the footway on
> your planet?

Actions might be different, attitudes are the same, as in "just bloody
selfish - happy to pose a danger to others".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Oxford cyclists win again
Replies
20
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
C
Oxford cyclists win again
Replies
20
Views
851
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
Carlo Pancaldi
Shrine Of Madonna Del Ghisallo - The Patroness Of Cyclists
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Carlo Pancaldi
Carlo Pancaldi
Starfish
Calling all spinners & cyclists! Take on a 24 or 12 hour challenge!
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Starfish
Starfish
Tetiana
Help of cyclists from France and Austria needed!
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Tetiana
Tetiana
Top Bottom Back