"Police forced to" make up laws against cyclists

[[email protected]]

I thought that this:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/npolice15.xml
"Police 'forced to target trivial offences"

Goes nicely opposite:-

"Motorists forced to cross double white lines to overtake
cyclists."



Lack of integrity outstanding all round I say.

 

[MO]

On 15 May, 19:03, [email protected] wrote:
> I thought that this:-
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/npoli...
> "Police 'forced to target trivial offences"
>
> Goes nicely opposite:-
>
> "Motorists forced to cross double white lines to overtake
> cyclists."
>
> Lack of integrity outstanding all round I say.

The story does not particularly refer to motorists or cyclists as in
your post, but talks of a wider problem with the police/law.

It is fascinating the sh!t that is churning right before us..

 

[Niall Wallace]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I thought that this:-
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/npolice15.xml
> "Police 'forced to target trivial offences"
>
> Goes nicely opposite:-
>
> "Motorists forced to cross double white lines to overtake
> cyclists."
>
>

Legit if the cyclists were travelling below 10mph, as is with a horse or
road roller

Niall

 

[vernon]

"Niall Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I thought that this:-
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/npolice15.xml
>> "Police 'forced to target trivial offences"
>>
>> Goes nicely opposite:-
>>
>> "Motorists forced to cross double white lines to overtake
>> cyclists."
>>
>>
>
> Legit if the cyclists were travelling below 10mph, as is with a horse or
> road roller
>
And if the cyclist was travelling more than 10mph, motorists are still not
forced to cross the double white lines, they can wait until the lines become
broken....

Sheesh...the paranoid conspiracy theorists read too much into the news....

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 May, 23:38, "vernon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Niall Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>I thought that this:-
>
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/npoli...
> >> "Police 'forced to target trivial offences"
>
> >> Goes nicely opposite:-
>
> >> "Motorists forced to cross double white lines to overtake
> >> cyclists."
>
> > Legit if the cyclists were travelling below 10mph, as is with a horse or
> > road roller
>
> And if the cyclist was travelling more than 10mph, motorists are still not
> forced to cross the double white lines, they can wait until the lines become
> broken....
>
> Sheesh...the paranoid conspiracy theorists read too much into the news....- Hide quoted text -

I'll confess to paranoid but not to the latter

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 16/05/2007 02:04 +0100:
>>
>> Sheesh...the paranoid conspiracy theorists read too much into the
>> news....- Hide quoted text -
>
> I'll confess to paranoid but not to the latter
>

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you ;-)



--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Peter Grange]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 23:38:08 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Niall Wallace" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>I thought that this:-
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/npolice15.xml
>>> "Police 'forced to target trivial offences"
>>>
>>> Goes nicely opposite:-
>>>
>>> "Motorists forced to cross double white lines to overtake
>>> cyclists."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Legit if the cyclists were travelling below 10mph, as is with a horse or
>> road roller
>>
>And if the cyclist was travelling more than 10mph, motorists are still not
>forced to cross the double white lines, they can wait until the lines become
>broken....
>
>Sheesh...the paranoid conspiracy theorists read too much into the news....
>
Is it not the overtaking, regardless of whether the double white lines
are crossed or not, that is the offence?


Pete

 

[Danny Colyer]

Peter Grange wrote:
> Is it not the overtaking, regardless of whether the double white lines
> are crossed or not, that is the offence?

Yes, it is indeed not the overtaking that is the offence.

HC rule 141:
You MUST NOT overtake
* if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a
solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 108)

HC rule 108:
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you
MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary
to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road
maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

 

[Matt B]

Peter Grange wrote:
>>
> Is it not the overtaking, regardless of whether the double white lines
> are crossed or not, that is the offence?

No. You can overtake so long as you don't cross the line. There are
many roads with a double white line and that have plenty of width to
allow safe overtaking. Sometimes the double white lines are not
central, but divide the road one-third two-thirds, to allow overtaking
up-hill, but not down-hill, and such like.

--
Matt B