One for Nuxxman.

On 05/06/2008 17:53, Simon Mason said,

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

I hope you had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you wrote the above ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

They really should get a knee surgeon handing out warnings to that
bloke. How low is his saddle.?

A

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

Quoted message said:

They really should get a knee surgeon handing out warnings to that
bloke. How low is his saddle.?

I see the police cyclist is on the pavement as well!

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at
all. Can't they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money
from soft targets?

The stated aims of the police seem quite reasonable, how it filters
through to the officers on the street we'll see.

Shame about the "Safely tips" though. Obvious omission of "You
shouldn't: ride in the gutter or overtake vehicles on the left if they
may turn across your path", and what's all that [censored] about hivis?

Do you think PCSO Mark Lutkin is going to advise the cyclist in the
picture that he should remove the D lock from his front wheel before
resuming his journey?

-dan

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +0100

Simon Mason said:

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

Reads like they're stopping cyclists at random! Fining those
who are "antisocial" (which is fine by me), but also stopping
innocent folks who are doing nothing wrong!

"Cyclists will be stopped and ... "

"Those using pavements may also be stopped."

"Cyclists found to have committed an offence ..."

The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.

Simon, if they stop you, insist on them giving you the
stop form our sniper once spoke of. Not sure what you
can do with it, but it might help make a point about
abuse of power.

--
not me guv

On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

--
Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Hi Simon,

Still getting out with HTRC?

Unfortunately (as you probabaly know) this is typical of Humberside
police. After their disgraced former CPO (David Westwood) scrapped the
force’s traffic teams (and according to the police themselves) 1 in 5
drivers in the Hull area are uninsured and over 50% of all crashes
leading to death or serious injury are hit and runs. According to the
Home Office Humberside are consistently the least effective force in
the country, or at least in the bottom couple, 20% of the time there
is no trained officer available to attend a fatal road crash and the
force has one of the lowest level of convictions for driving whilst
using a mobile and so on.

Also, when I had the misfortune to live in this god-forsaken part of
Airstrip One, an inspector who visited me after I had made complaints
about the almost zero level of traffic policing in the area admitted
to me that it was an unofficial `official` policy of his force not to
even consider prosecuting a driver who had caused injury to a cyclist
unless the cyclist had ended up in a coffin or a wheelchair!

Meanwhile in order to keep the `Daily Mail Readers` happy they send
out legions of CSO`s and officers assigned to local teams in order to
fine those cyclists too afraid to cycle on the highway due to the
unpoliced free-for-all which exists on the roads! It also seems that
when doing so they pay scant regard to the Home Office guidance on the
use of fixed penalty notices as reiterated by John Crozier of the Home
Office, who in a letter dated 23/02/04 (Ref T5080/4) stated:

``The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour
Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling
irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty
notice. I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate
cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at
responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement
out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road
users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty
needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it
cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.``

Nick Kew said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

Quoted message said:

Reads like they're stopping cyclists at random! Fining those
who are "antisocial" (which is fine by me), but also stopping
innocent folks who are doing nothing wrong!

Well, absolutely anyone - pedestrian, motorcyclist, push-biker,
car-driver, van-driver or lorry-driver - is "stoppable" by the police.
There is no need for any of them to have done anything wrong.

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists will be stopped and ... "

Quoted message said:

"Those using pavements may also be stopped."

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists found to have committed an offence ..."

Quoted message said:

The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.

But it isn't - and it is established practice, about which no-one turns
a hair.

When I was a lot younger and had a lot more hair, I used to be surprised
to get to the end of a car journey without being stopped.

Quoted message said:

Simon, if they stop you, insist on them giving you the
stop form our sniper once spoke of. Not sure what you
can do with it, but it might help make a point about
abuse of power.

What "abuse" would that be?

The police can stop anyone they like. They might be looking for a mugger
or a shoplifter, or someone who has committed one of a large range of
offences - or who has witnessed one.. Is there some reason why such a
person (the definition is wide enough) might not also be a cyclist?

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:53:53 +0100

Simon Mason said:

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

Reads like they're stopping cyclists at random! Fining those
who are "antisocial" (which is fine by me), but also stopping
innocent folks who are doing nothing wrong!

"Cyclists will be stopped and ... "

"Those using pavements may also be stopped."

"Cyclists found to have committed an offence ..."

The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.

I don't think it is. I have been stopped by the police in Brighton who were
conducting random breath tests.

Quoted message said:

Simon, if they stop you, insist on them giving you the
stop form our sniper once spoke of. Not sure what you
can do with it, but it might help make a point about
abuse of power.

--
not me guv

On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

Are you trying to be funny? Do you think road safety's a laughing
matter? Think of the children.

It's quite simple. I want motorists to be prosecuted/penalised for
things which are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible
(because that is what the law is for). This (no matter how much the
trolls like to pretend otherwise) does not include exceeding a speed
limit in safety, parking on unnecessary double yellow lines, or
driving in unnecessary bus lanes when there are no buses or cyclists
to be seen. It does include driving without a licence/insurance/tax/
MOT, drink- and drug-driving, dangerous/illegal overtaking, lane-
hogging, causing a huge queue and refusing to pull over and let it
past, not indicating, pulling out in front of people, jumping red
lights, driving inappropriately fast, and all sorts of other things
(the vast majority of driving offences in fact). Do you understand
yet, or shall I go over it in even simpler terms?

Equally, since unlike the trolls I don't discriminate between modes of
transport, I want cyclists to be prosecuted/penalised for things which
are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible (because that is
what the law is for). This does not include cycling on the pavement
when there is obviously no-one around, or jumping red lights on
pedestrian crossings when there are clearly no pedestrians who will be
affected. It does include cycling on the pavement if there are people
around, jumping red lights the way that cyclists (IME) normally do,
deliberately obstructing motor traffic, cycling three or more abreast,
furious cycling, and pretty much anything else which is illegal on a
bicycle.

All I want is for the same degree of discretion and common sense to
apply to motorists and cyclists. The trolls, on the other hand, want
discretion and common sense to be applied to cyclists, but want
motorists to receive huge and disproportionate punishments for
absolutely every technical infraction, no matter if anyone suffers.
Their motivation is quite clearly the persecution of motorists for
driving at all, rather than road safety. Further proof of this is the
fact that the trolls even want motorists to be punished when they're
accused of speeding despite not having actually been speeding; any
motorist who dares to fight a speeding ticket in court, no matter how
unjustified the ticket, is invariably subjected to high levels of
abuse from the trolls. It's not about "safety", it's not about
"justice", it's about punishing motorists for driving full stop. Not
that any of the trolls will ever admit it, because lying about it
seems to be part of the trolls' sick little game.

Now I really hope you've got that, Simon Mason. If you haven't,
there's really no hope for you. But I think you know perfectly well
what I mean, as you did when you started this topic, and trying to win
an argument by pretending not to understand someone's position is
pretty lame TBH. If you want to attempt to explain why cyclists
shouldn't be punished for every little infraction, but motorists
should, then go ahead. But just because you can't, that's no reason
to keep trying to waste my time by pretending to be thick instead.
It's really not as funny or clever as you seem to think.

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:46:31 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

"Those using pavements may also be stopped."

Then I look forward to reading that the police bod in the second
photograph was stopped and dealt with for riding on the pavement.

--
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

On Jun 6, 8:26 am, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:46:31 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

Quoted message said:

"Those using pavements may also be stopped."

Then I look forward to reading that the police bod in the second
photograph was stopped and dealt with for riding on the pavement.

--
  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

This is exactly how Nazi Germany started. Everyone knows that cycling
on the pavement reduces risk, it's on my website Safepedalling.co.uk,
where you will find convincing graphs that I've coloured in to show
how, in fact, blah blah blah.

I've seen coppers stop cyclists in The City as trucks trundle through
red lights.

"Nuxx Bar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
by pretending not to understand someone's position is
pretty lame TBH. If you want to attempt to explain why cyclists
shouldn't be punished for every little infraction, but motorists
should, then go ahead.

On the contrary, I would like both motorists and cyclists to be held to
account for all lawbreaking, minor or not. However, it would be a change if
people accepted that they did wrong, paid the penalty and then *stopped
moaning* how badly done to they are.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Howard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jun 5, 6:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

--
Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Hi Simon,

Still getting out with HTRC?

Yes Howard,
You can check the result section of their home page
http://www.hullthursdayrc.co.uk/2008/resultsmain.html

All the best,
Simon

"Nuxx Bar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

Are you trying to be funny? Do you think road safety's a laughing
matter? Think of the children.

It's quite simple. I want motorists to be prosecuted/penalised for
things which are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible
(because that is what the law is for). This (no matter how much the
trolls like to pretend otherwise) does not include exceeding a speed
limit in safety, parking on unnecessary double yellow lines, or
driving in unnecessary bus lanes when there are no buses or cyclists
to be seen. Do you understand
yet, or shall I go over it in even simpler terms?

I understand it perfectly well. You want to obey laws that *you* choose to
obey, but you don't want to be done for offences *you* consider minor or
unnecessary. That is fairly typical of the "hard pressed poor British
motorist" who wants everybody else fined but a blind eye turned to their own
offences.

I have found in 34 years of driving that obeying the law works. I have had
just two speeding offences and no parking tickets in all that time and my
licence has been clean for 12 years, so you might understand why I fail to
see why others can't do the same and obey the law - it's not so hard to do.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Nuxx Bar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
targets?

Are you trying to be funny? Do you think road safety's a laughing
matter? Think of the children.

It's quite simple. I want motorists to be prosecuted/penalised for
things which are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible
(because that is what the law is for). This (no matter how much the
trolls like to pretend otherwise) does not include exceeding a speed
limit in safety, parking on unnecessary double yellow lines, or
driving in unnecessary bus lanes when there are no buses or cyclists
to be seen. It does include driving without a licence/insurance/tax/
MOT, drink- and drug-driving, dangerous/illegal overtaking, lane-
hogging, causing a huge queue and refusing to pull over and let it
past, not indicating, pulling out in front of people, jumping red
lights, driving inappropriately fast, and all sorts of other things
(the vast majority of driving offences in fact). Do you understand
yet, or shall I go over it in even simpler terms?

Equally, since unlike the trolls I don't discriminate between modes of
transport, I want cyclists to be prosecuted/penalised for things which
are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible (because that is
what the law is for). This does not include cycling on the pavement
when there is obviously no-one around, or jumping red lights on
pedestrian crossings when there are clearly no pedestrians who will be
affected. It does include cycling on the pavement if there are people
around, jumping red lights the way that cyclists (IME) normally do,
deliberately obstructing motor traffic, cycling three or more abreast,
furious cycling, and pretty much anything else which is illegal on a
bicycle.

All I want is for the same degree of discretion and common sense to
apply to motorists and cyclists. The trolls, on the other hand, want
discretion and common sense to be applied to cyclists, but want
motorists to receive huge and disproportionate punishments for
absolutely every technical infraction, no matter if anyone suffers.
Their motivation is quite clearly the persecution of motorists for
driving at all, rather than road safety. Further proof of this is the
fact that the trolls even want motorists to be punished when they're
accused of speeding despite not having actually been speeding; any
motorist who dares to fight a speeding ticket in court, no matter how
unjustified the ticket, is invariably subjected to high levels of
abuse from the trolls. It's not about "safety", it's not about
"justice", it's about punishing motorists for driving full stop. Not
that any of the trolls will ever admit it, because lying about it
seems to be part of the trolls' sick little game.

Now I really hope you've got that, Simon Mason. If you haven't,
there's really no hope for you. But I think you know perfectly well
what I mean, as you did when you started this topic, and trying to win
an argument by pretending not to understand someone's position is
pretty lame TBH. If you want to attempt to explain why cyclists
shouldn't be punished for every little infraction, but motorists
should, then go ahead. But just because you can't, that's no reason
to keep trying to waste my time by pretending to be thick instead.
It's really not as funny or clever as you seem to think.

On 05/06/2008 20:46, Nick Kew said,

Quoted message said:

"Cyclists will be stopped and ... "

Quoted message said:

The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.

It isn't legal when applied to motorists - police can stop you whenever
they like.

In the newspaper article it appears that the police are treating
law-breaking cyclists in the same way they treat law-breaking motorists,
so I really don't see a problem. It might even go some way to removing
some of the antagonism cyclists get from motorists who believe that
cyclists can get away with breaking the law but motorists can't.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Sorry for previous unedited post!

Incidentally, I am just setting off on a 3000 mile trip around Europe for
which I have had to thoroughly familiarise myself with local traffic laws.
So I have two hi-vis jackets (inside the car, not illegally in the boot)
spare bulbs, spare prescription glasses, fire extinguisher, first aid kit,
International Driving Permit, two warning triangles, headlamp converters
etc.

Plus, I have to *pay* to use 5 different countries road network by the
vignette system and the sneaky thing is, some countries don't even have
speed limit signs; you are expected to know what it is when you reach the
town sign itself and the police hide behind them with speed guns! Sneaky or
what?

NL-D-A-H-RO-MD-UA-PL-D-NL.

Toodle pip. :-)

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Daniel Barlow said:

Do you think PCSO Mark Lutkin is going to advise the cyclist in the
picture that he should remove the D lock from his front wheel before
resuming his journey?

I'm more worried by the lack of brakes on the back. I see people
with the back brakes undone like that all the time and still can't
work out why they do it. Apart from laziness, that is.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:24:16 +0100 someone who may be Paul Boyd
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.

It isn't legal when applied to motorists - police can stop you whenever
they like.

The police claim otherwise and occasionally mount campaigns to have
this changed, most usually in the context of "unfettered" breath
testing.

Quoted message said:

In the newspaper article it appears that the police are treating
law-breaking cyclists in the same way they treat law-breaking motorists,
so I really don't see a problem.

I can't recall any cases where the police have stopped all private
motorists without a reason and carried out tests on their vehicles.
Buses and lorries yes, but not cars. I suspect that if they did so
there would be uproar about yet another imposition on poor oppressed
motorists. If you are aware of any such cases please provide
evidence if you can.

Quoted message said:

It might even go some way to removing
some of the antagonism cyclists get from motorists who believe that
cyclists can get away with breaking the law but motorists can't.

I doubt it. Motorists get away with breaking the law many millions
of times a day, despite attempts by some to claim that any law
breaking is punished. Those who make those claims are the same sort
of people who claim that the number of police officers dealing with
motoring has been dramatically reduced. They fail to see the
contradiction in their claims.

--
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