Not all Cyclists are Nice

Quoted message said:

guardian.co.uk0,2763,1134879,00.htmlOpen ↗

Indeed. Here's another scary thought. Not all people are nice.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

Kirby James said:

guardian.co.uk0,2763,1134879,00.htmlOpen ↗

It seems astonishing to me that one can get a 4 year cycling ban for "anti-social behaviour"
when drivers who kill and seriously injure through their negligence very rarely get any driving
ban at all.

James

Quoted message said:

It seems astonishing to me that one can get a 4 year cycling ban for "anti-social behaviour"
when drivers who kill and seriously injure through their negligence very rarely get any driving
ban at all.

James

You've totally missed the point. The ASBO banning the use of bicycles was imposed as the bikes were
used literally and deliberately as vehicles for planned criminal activities. Not the same as drivers
who have mishaps which were avoidable but definitely not planned.

Yet another pointless chalk and cheese argument.

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

It seems astonishing to me that one can get a 4 year cycling ban for "anti-social behaviour"
when drivers who kill and seriously injure through their negligence very rarely get any driving
ban at all.

James

You've totally missed the point. The ASBO banning the use of bicycles was imposed as the bikes
were used literally and deliberately as vehicles for planned criminal activities.

Does anyone who literally and deliberately uses a car as part of their planned criminal activity
(eg getaway) ever get a driving ban? Only occasionally, when the nature of the car driving is in
itself illegal.

The article specifically mentions the "gang members" (maybe not the same individuals) driving
around too:

"But Gooch Close gang members were still active - with its members driving high-performance cars,
wearing bulletproof vests and dealing in crack cocaine."

But did anyone get a driving ban? Or for that matter a bulletproof vest wearing ban? I guess if
one of them dares to outrun a lard-arsed pig stuck in a traffic jam they will get trainer-
wearing bans too.

James

James Annan said:

But did anyone get a driving ban? Or for that matter a bulletproof

vest

Quoted message said:

wearing ban?

The article mentioned a ban on wearing body armour. I didn't notice any mention of a driving ban,
though, and it's a fair point.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Quoted message said:

Does anyone who literally and deliberately uses a car as part of their planned criminal activity
(eg getaway) ever get a driving ban?

Actually they do and they subsequently ignore it. Only incarceration or death guarantees to stop
banned motorists from driving :-)

Quoted message said:

Only occasionally, when the nature of the car driving is in itself illegal.

Remove your blinkers and do some data collection before making sweeping assertions. Where's the body
evidence that underpins your statement?

Quoted message said:

"But Gooch Close gang members were still active - with its members driving high-performance cars,
wearing bulletproof vests and dealing in crack cocaine."

Just like red light running cyclists, the Gooch Close gang members need to be caught in the act of
breaking the law before something can be done. Possesion of and wearing a bullet proof vest is not
illegal. The wearer might have needed the extra warmth in the recent cold snap.

Quoted message said:

I guess if one of them dares to outrun a lard-arsed pig stuck in a traffic jam they will get trainer-
wearing bans too.

Well some of the designs are a tad offensive to the eye, some are offensive to the nose, the
majority offensive to the wallet. I'd welcome a trainer ban.

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

Only occasionally, when the nature of the car driving is in itself illegal.

Remove your blinkers and do some data collection before making sweeping assertions. Where's the
body evidence that underpins your statement?

I'm not sure what planet it is you are living on, but can you name one case where someone was banned
from driving without committing a specific motoring offence? Did Fred West get banned after using
his car "literally and deliberately" as a vehicle to transport him to his "planned criminal
activity" of mass murder? What about Ian Huntley, who carried the bodies to their burial site in the
boot of his car? Let alone some accountant who drives to work every day where he commits fraud.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"But Gooch Close gang members were still active - with its members driving high-performance cars,
wearing bulletproof vests and dealing in crack cocaine."

Just like red light running cyclists, the Gooch Close gang members need to be caught in the act of
breaking the law before something can be done.

Except they can be banned from riding bicycles without any suggestion that their cycling was in any
way dangerous or illegal. They haven't even been charged with any criminal activity.

James

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:08:51 -0000, "vernon levy" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You've totally missed the point. The ASBO banning the use of bicycles was imposed as the bikes were
used literally and deliberately as vehicles for planned criminal activities. Not the same as
drivers who have mishaps which were avoidable but definitely not planned.

Really? So when they set off they don't *intend* to speed, making that an *unplanned* criminal
activity? Now I understand ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:14:48 -0000, "vernon levy" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Just like red light running cyclists

You misspelled "motorists" there.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

They haven't even been charged with any criminal activity.

You don't have to be a criminal or have been caught commited a criminal act to have an ASBO
served on you.

Consider them to be a pre-emptive strike against folk who make their neighbourhood an unpleasant
place to live.

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

They haven't even been charged with any criminal activity.

You don't have to be a criminal or have been caught commited a criminal act to have an ASBO
served on you.

Exactly. I've never heard of a motorist losing his licence for "being antisocial". Indeed these
people have not lost theirs.

James

Quoted message said:

Really? So when they set off they don't *intend* to speed, making that an *unplanned* criminal
activity? Now I understand ;-)

I'm sure that you know that speeding is a civil offence.

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone who literally and deliberately uses a car as part of their planned criminal activity
(eg getaway) ever get a driving ban? Only occasionally, when the nature of the car driving is in
itself illegal.

the ASBO laws also are planned to cover this (including "cruising" or illegal racing) and include
powers to confiscate vehicles.

IME most getaway drivers tend not to obey traffic laws all that often (and often come from the
cruising fraternity)

Its well known that the local "firms" tend to look for lads who can "drive fast" when they need a
driver and take an interest in the local "boy racers" (some of these people aren't fussy over where
their vehicles or accessories come from so come into contact with the local fences) - this hasn't
been unnoticed by the old bill who are taking far more of an interest in aggressive driving these
days (certainly seems the case in TVP area).

I'm fairly liberal in my views but I *wouldn't* class this an over-reaction. Crack dealing crims on
mountain bikes have basically destroyed communities in "gunchester" for the last 14 years... (thats
how the city got its nickname!). Given that there wasn't enough evidence to send the people in the
report to *prison*; I would expect this penalty is a warning to them to choose their friends more
carefully and avoid being dragged further into gang culture; and if restricting their mobility is
one of the ways of doing so, then so be it.

Alex

vernon levy said:

I'm sure that you know that speeding is a civil offence.

Oh, now I get it. You really _are_ from a different planet.

James

Mr R@t -ratsnest23-zulu alpha said:

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
net.or.jp...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone who literally and deliberately uses a car as part of their planned criminal activity
(eg getaway) ever get a driving ban? Only occasionally, when the nature of the car driving is in
itself illegal.

the ASBO laws also are planned to cover this (including "cruising" or illegal racing) and include
powers to confiscate vehicles.

A quick google suggests that the application of ASBO to _driving_ is generally limited to the
laughable condition that the person should only drive with appropriate insurance and licence etc.
Since in the cases I found they had already committed several criminal motoring offences such as
driving without insurance and licence that seems to me to be a stark contrast with the cyclists
being immediately banned when they had not been convicted of anything at all.

manchester.gov.ukmooney.htmOpen ↗
manchester.gov.ukpeelban.htmOpen ↗

James

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mr R@t -ratsnest23-zulu alpha said:

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

A quick google suggests that the application of ASBO to _driving_ is generally limited to the
laughable condition that the person should only drive with appropriate insurance and licence etc.
Since in the cases I found they had already committed several criminal motoring offences such as
driving without insurance and licence that seems to me to be a stark contrast with the cyclists
being immediately banned when they had not been convicted of anything at all.

manchester.gov.ukmooney.htmOpen ↗
manchester.gov.ukpeelban.htmOpen ↗

these are older ASBOs - the rules on confiscating cars etc are quite recent - may only have become
law in January.

Actually the ban doesn't even seem that harsh when you consider it only extends to the *City of
Manchester* - they could go anywhere else in the UK and ride bikes as much as they want.

These ASBOs aren't primarily to deal with traffic offences anyway - they are intended to disrupt the
lives and circles of friends of these people to prevent them getting involved in a gang. what they
do is make sure the person is "marked" and will have to be careful where they go in that city or
avoid getting into trouble!

I appreciate that the use of them must be kept under scrutiny to prevent them being used a as catch-
all that could limit peoples freedom of movement - but at the same time this seems like an
acceptable penalty considering the trouble this mob caused.

If someone has already driven without a license than a ban makes no difference whatsoever - they can
get in a car and drive anyway - the only thing that will stop them is *prison*.

Alex

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that you know that speeding is a civil offence.

Oh, now I get it. You really _are_ from a different planet.

James

No, just conversant with the law as applied to breaking speed limits. Been there, done it, paid the
fine and omitted all references to the 'conviction' when filling in application forms requiring
details of criminal convictions.

Become conversant with the law before you base your arguments on faulty interpretations James.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:12:03 -0000, "vernon levy" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that you know that speeding is a civil offence.

Do I indeed? Some people don't, apparently:

<URL:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8765rt2mey.fsf%40happy.sherilyn.org.uk&oe=UTF-
8&output=gplain>

As far as I know the Crown Prosecution Service do not handle civil matters. They do, however,
handle speeding.

Looks like a criminal matter to me, not that I'm a lawyer.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

vernon levy said:

No, just conversant with the law as applied to breaking speed limits. Been there, done it, paid
the fine and omitted all references to the 'conviction' when filling in application forms
requiring details of criminal convictions.

The fact that you might be allowed to leave them off some forms is a matter for those who design the
forms. That's got nothing to do with the law on speeding. If it was a civil offence, why would the
state have any interest in prosecuting you?

Eg the first google hit (obviously referring to the USA, but the principles are the same):

----------------
What is the difference between criminal law and civil law?

Civil law suits are private suits between two or more citizens. Civil law is the area of law by
which private individuals resolve their differences with the help of the civil courts.

Criminal law involves a citizen or a business and the state. The rules of the federal government and
all individual state governments are codified into statutes. When an individual violates the rules,
as listed in the statutes, then the federal government or the state will prosecute the individual.

The remedies available in civil courts are generally limited to money damages. The remedies in
criminal court may involve a money fine and/or a prison sentence.
----------------

Quoted message said:

Become conversant with the law before you base your arguments on faulty interpretations James.

Thank you for your patronising comment. Unfortunately you are the one with the faulty
interpretation, based apparently on the fact that you may not be obliged to enter details of your
offence on certain forms. It's still criminal law that you broke.

James