Tom Crispin wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In 2004/2005 nearly 6,000,000 PCNs were issued by the London Boroughs
>>>to motorists. This excludes much law breaking by motorists, including
>>>PCNs issued by the Metropolitan police.
>>>http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=14121&cat=1046
>>It's easy to prosecute drivers and vehicle-owners because they are
>>easily-traced.
>>It's next to impossible to trace and/or prosecute rogue cyclists, for
>>obvious reasons.
> The same could be said of people who drop litter.
Indeed it could.
But what would be the relevance of saying it (other than that it is another
offence committed by selfish yobs, I mean)? At least it isn't usually
dangerous, unlike cycling on the footway, eh?
>>>In 2001 15 cyclists faced proscecution for cycling offences: 2 for a
>>>traffic signal offence, 2 for lighting or reflector offences and 11
>>>for footway cycling. (Of those 15, 13 were found guilty.)
>>>http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo031006/text/31006w02.htm
>>Blimey, they were unlucky, weren't they?
>>Did plod get out of bed the wrong side that day? Or were they the ones
>>whose conscience was troubling them so badly that they gave themselves up?
>>You are being deceitfully disingenuous, aren't you? The complaint is
>>precisely THAT lawless cyclists get away with it. Don't take that fact that
>>they get away with it as evidence that they don't get away with it.
> What proportion of those who contravene parking regulations get away
> with it? Or those who speed?
I don't know and it absolutely does not matter, because no matter what the
numbers were, it would not justify cycling on the footway - would it?
So why do you ask?
>>>So, it appears that 400,000 times as many motorists were deemed to
>>>have committed a parking infringment alone than all cyclists'
>>>offences.
>>No. It doesn't "seem" that at all; not to anyone with a brain, anyway. Not
>>even to you - you are just being evasive and (unsuccessfully) deceitful -
>>aren't you?
>>>And, I don't suppose the booking rate for parking offences is 400,000
>>>times higher than the booking rate for cycling offences.
> So do you think the booking rate for parking offences is 400,000 times
> higher than for all cycling offences?
I don't know what the numbers are. In some places (eg, London), the chances
of a driver getting away with parking offences seem relatively low. The
chances of cyclists getting away with their offences is very high
everywhere. That I do or don't know the relative numbers is irrelevant, not
least because the one has nothing to do with the other.
>>>Do you want to modify your opinion?
>>That cyclists are, by and large (with honourable exceptions - I have always
>>accepted that), a bunch of lawless yobs?
>>No.
> And you think that motorists, by and large, always obey speed
> restrictions and always obey parking regulations? The figure of
> nearly 6,000,000 PCNs issued in London alone suggests otherwise.
Whether that is or is not so, it is irrelevant to the point at hand - isn't it?
So why ask?
