Daniel Cadden Case Appeal Result.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:57:30 -0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

many people these
days seem somewhat distanced from reality,

Some appear to think that they can press a reset button and restore
things to the way they were before.

Quoted message said:

and personal responsibility
seems to be a foreign concept in modern society.

Indeed, a concept that those at "the top" appear to be particularly
keen to run away from.

--
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

"Simon Dean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

:

That bit is not clear from the article.

So what we're doing here is debating whether or not you're correct in
jumping to a whole raft of prejudiced conclusions on the basis of a short
and incomplete article? The article is not the definitive account of the
incident - if it were Cadden would have lost his case. Plod was wrong, the
judge was wrong, and you, Sir, are wrong.

Simon Dean said:

May I interject as a car driver? Surely all this does in create a
dangerous precedent to invalid carriages, JCB's, Tractors et al to hold
up traffic. Is it not in the highway code that if you're holding traffic
up, you should, at your earliest opportunity, pull over if you can to
let traffic by? Since by definition, it's inconsiderate.

I'll be charitable and assume you're playing Devil's Advocate...

There's a world of difference between holding up a long queue of
traffic inconsiderately, and simply using the road.

On the road in question, Daniel was riding perfectly legally - it was
a short stretch of road between two roundabouts, so drivers had to
slow down anyway. Likewise, tractor drivers who are only going a short
distance along the main road are not a problem.

If a cyclist rode in that way for a few miles, on a genuine 60mph
road, preventing traffic from (safely) overtaking, and made no attempt
to let following traffic past, then yes, he would be riding without
due consideration.

Quoted message said:

I can't speak for the Daniel Cadden case.... But I understand he was
driving in the middle of the lane and cycling "fast" but from the look
of this particular road on Midlands Today, I would say it has a national
speed limit of 60 mph. And if cars were having to overtake him, then,
er, he was holding them up.

Again, you have to differentiate between holding someone up, and
unduly or inconsiderately holding someone up.

We can't say "Thou shalt never hold up another road user", because it
isn't reasonable to banish all but the fastest vehicles from the road
- and that's what it would entail. The question is whether it was
reasonable to force him to either stop or take up an unsafe road
position for the paltry benefit it gave to the following drivers.

If you remember what the original judge said, all the situational
facts were pretty much irrelevant - as far as he was concerned,
cyclists had no business being on a road if there was any other way
for them to make their journey. That (i) the alternative route was
slow and unsafe, and (ii) Daniel was riding at speed and would only
have delayed drivers by a minute amount, didn't actually matter to
him.

Quoted message said:

I presume if this guy drives a car, when he's on the motorway, he sits
in the middle lane at 60 mph and saying he has every right to be there?

If he is overtaking slower traffic in the inside lane then yes, he
does have a right to be there. If he's just being bloody-minded or
bloody- stupid and not using the left-hand lane when he could do -
that's a very different situation. The cycle lane along West Centre
Way was on the wrong side of the road, and to get to it, Daniel would
have had to cross the flow of traffic exiting the roundabout onto WCW,
then cross traffic going the other way onto the roundabout, cross a
side turning half-way down the hill - what happens to the cycle lane
at the bottom of the hill isn't clear from the aerial shots but it
looks equally unhelpful.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

David Hansen said:

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:47:43 +0000 someone who may be Simon Dean
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Excellent, a personal attack. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.

With respect, you started with that by calling me prejudiced.

I don't recall doing so, but I can't be bothered to wade through
many postings to say one way or the other.

I think you've lost this argument...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> What I have a problem with, is when said farm traffic passes a
> perfectly adequate layby and do not pull over to let the queues of
> traffic by.
Not something you mentioned in the posting to which I replied. I note
the swerve from your earlier posting.

Then maybe you're the one who's prejudiced in picking me up something
you don't know?

I have no idea what you are trying to say in that sentence.

Peculiarly enough, I have no idea what you were trying to talking about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or maybe you should go and read my last paragraph on my
10.48am post...

That would involve pressing several buttons on my computer. Not
something I can be bothered to do.

And you deny I said something, deny your insults, then refuse to look at
them in case, maybe Im proved correct and justifying your post?

Ugh... if you want me to do it for you, why don't you google it...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't. Other than patchy reports. I've already said I was wrong when I
was filled in on the other bits care of wafflycat... I did say Im fine
with that as people have expanded on the rather limiting story and shown
that he was being as courteous as possible.

This case has been discussed here at length, including precisely
what happened. As others have implied, a little research can be
useful.

Well excuse me for not being privvy to your knowledgable discussions.
Discussions are at best an opinion and unvalidated personal knowledge of
the situation. I did look at the BBC news website, the section for
Shropshire, the BBC, that great corner stone of accurate reporting, or
at least you would believe it to be, and, well, it's wrong.

Perhaps there's something wrong with coming here and discussion, and
maybe there's something wrong with me actually learning the real events
that unfolded? Perhaps it would have been better had I not come here and
instead sat fuming about Mr Cadden?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And I would say you don't have the maturity necessary in order to
> actually engage in a debate...
See my first p;oint.

Good good. Yes, thank you for reminding me that you used this phrase
first.

I will repeat it again too. If what you said in your earlier posting
about yourself is correct then you don't have the maturity necessary
to operate a motor vehicle properly.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/12.htm#125

Just because I get incensed, outraged, flabbergasted that we can allow
incompetent idiots on the road, and that whole section is all about
making excuses. But it doesn't mean that I don't have any patience, or
that I become agitated while driving. It's a poor conclusion you draw.

Frankly, that whole section should be re-worded though... Be
Considerate: Try not to pull out in anybodys path at a road junction. If
you do, accelerate quickly to match their speed... Do not leap into the
middle lane of the motorway by coming down the slip road at 50 mph and
then joining the second lane with no mirrors or turn signals....

Toodles

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:54:13 +0000 someone who may be Simon Dean
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I think you've lost this argument...

Think what you like.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps there's something wrong with coming here

Nothing wrong with that.

Quoted message said:

and discussion,

Ditto.

Quoted message said:

maybe there's something wrong with me actually learning the real events
that unfolded?

Ditto.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps it would have been better had I not come here and
instead sat fuming about Mr Cadden?

Perhaps it would have been better had you found out the facts in a
more subtle fashion. Instead you jumped into something which I doubt
that even now you understand the sensitivities of.

Since the 1930s the motoring lobby has been trying to get those
dammed cyclists out of their way, as that nice Mr [censored] did. This
is presented as a kind way of making things better for cyclists but,
like all separate but equal systems, the reality is rather different
to the spin.

The cycling lobby is not keen on being banished to bike bantustans
and has been fighting modal cleansing since the 1930s. On the UK
scale the latest onslaught by the motoring lobby was a proposed
revision to the Highway Code, which is why Mr Geffen comments at the
end of http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4774 about
the misguided views of the police and magistrate.

--
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

Simon Dean said:

Perhaps there's something wrong with coming here and discussion, and
maybe there's something wrong with me actually learning the real events
that unfolded? Perhaps it would have been better had I not come here and
instead sat fuming about Mr Cadden?

Perhaps you would benefit from following the threads so that you
understand what is already known about this case, before you wade in
with your half-arsed opinions.

Cyclecraft is quite clear on positioning.

To the best of my knowledge, having seen photos of the road in question,
there are no passing places.

Tony Raven said:

So Mr Dean, what is it about cyclists that causes you to get incensed
about things they do which you happily accept daily from other drivers?

Wealth. Fitness. Independence. Good looks. Style. Happiness.

Need I go on?

John Hearns said:

Simon Dean said:

I have a regular route to work... It's about a mile down a 60mph
lane.... I regularly get caught up by someone travelling at 30mph in a
60mph limit.Errr.... no you don't.

You drive along the road at the national limit, and catch someone else up.
You are Mr Toad, and I claim my five pounds.

Let's apply your logic, shall we?
Several days a week, I drive across London at the start of a business
trip by car. Day in, day out I drive across London from Docklands to the
start of the M4 or M40 motorways. It takes me between one hour and one
and a half hours to drive the twelve miles.
Thats' right - a bicycle goes faster than me.
So let's get those cars off the road in central London - they're holding
up the bicycles.

And bluster and posture all you want - if slower vehicles are to get out
of the way of oh-so-important people on their way to oh-so-important
business, then cars should be cleared from the streets of London.

LOL, he doesn't answer your post, does he?

Simon Dean said:

But you gotta admit (like in all walks of life), there are some bad
cyclists out there who give you guys a bad name?

There are some bad cyclists out there (hence the acronym "POB" -
"Pedestrian On Bike" - that you see here from time to time) but I've
never really understood the justification of how they give the rest a
bad name. After all, the bad motorists (tailgaters, red light jumpers,
Nova drivers with farting subwoofers, middle lane hogs, & cetera) don't
seem to spread their reputation onto the rest of motoring.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Chris Eilbeck said:

Rob Morley <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you not appreciate the difference between "a cyclist" and
"someone on a bike"?

[...]

Quoted message said:

Where would the line be drawn?

If they know what they're doing, they're cyclists

If they're behaving like pedestrians with extra kinetic energy, they're not

Has nothing to do with what you wear or how fast you go or how many
miles a week, and everything to do with whether you're in control of the
situation and competent to be on the road.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Rob Morley said:

More like the difference between a careful driver and an accident
waiting to happen; 'weapon' implies some sort of malicious intent that

This is nitpicking, but no. Cause an accident with a shotgun and you'll
lose the licence for it pretty damn fast, irrespective of whether there
was malice intended. For some reason vehicle operators are not held to
the same standard - probably, again, because it's "normal" to own a car,
and "not normal" to own firearms, and politically OK to require higher
standards from people with minority interests than the general population.

A weapon's just a tool - as the NRA are so fond of pointing out, "guns
don't kill people".

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Daniel Barlow said:

There are some bad cyclists out there (hence the acronym "POB" -
"Pedestrian On Bike" - that you see here from time to time) but I've
never really understood the justification of how they give the rest a
bad name.

They /shouldn't/, but note how variously over time all non-whites have
been savages, all Germans have been Nazis, all [insert creed here] have
only been fit for burning, all drivers of white transits/taxis have
been homicidal maniacs etc. etc.

Any minority group that can attract a negative stereotype probably will.
It's just the way people seem to be, justification has nothing to do
with it.

Quoted message said:

After all, the bad motorists (tailgaters, red light jumpers,
Nova drivers with farting subwoofers, middle lane hogs, & cetera) don't
seem to spread their reputation onto the rest of motoring.

But almost everyone applying the stereotypes will be some other part of
motoring, while cyclists will often be a distinctly separate "them".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <[email hidden]>, Daniel Barlow
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

More like the difference between a careful driver and an accident
waiting to happen; 'weapon' implies some sort of malicious intent that

This is nitpicking, but no. Cause an accident with a shotgun and you'll
lose the licence for it pretty damn fast, irrespective of whether there
was malice intended.

I should have made it clear that I was referring to things that would
not 'normally' be considered weapons. A hammer's purpose it to hit
things, a knife's purpose is to cut things and a gun's purpose is to
shoot things, but a car's purpose is to provide transportation (even
though it can also be used as a large hammer).

Quoted message said:

For some reason vehicle operators are not held to
the same standard - probably, again, because it's "normal" to own a car,
and "not normal" to own firearms, and politically OK to require higher
standards from people with minority interests than the general population.

A weapon's just a tool - as the NRA are so fond of pointing out, "guns
don't kill people".

Indeed.

Quoting Simon Dean <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

But you gotta admit (like in all walks of life), there are some bad
cyclists out there who give you guys a bad name?

Conversely, there are some bad motorists out there who kill a few thousand
people every year. I think we can live with the mote in our eye.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoting Simon Dean <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I feel Im tarred with the same brush, that Im the cause of global
warming etc.

Good. You are.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Response to Daniel Barlow:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you not appreciate the difference between "a cyclist" and
"someone on a bike"?

[...]

Quoted message said:

Where would the line be drawn?

If they know what they're doing, they're cyclists

If they're behaving like pedestrians with extra kinetic energy, they're not

Sounds *much* too much like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy for my
liking. I can see the use of various expressive phrases for people who
we see as not "true cyclists"; but the yoof cycling unlit at night on
the pavement is by any normal definition a cyclist, just as the same
yoof a year later pulling handbrake turns in an uninsured rustbucket is
a motorist.

--
Mark, UK
"The government is merely a servant - merely a temporary servant; it
cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong,
and decide who is a patriot and who isn't."

Mark McNeill said:

Quoted message said:

If they know what they're doing, they're cyclists

If they're behaving like pedestrians with extra kinetic energy,

they're not

Quoted message said:

Sounds *much* too much like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy for my
liking. I can see the use of various expressive phrases for people who
we see as not "true cyclists"; but the yoof cycling unlit at night on
the pavement is by any normal definition a cyclist, just as the same
yoof a year later pulling handbrake turns in an uninsured rustbucket is
a motorist.

Yes, it's "no true Scotsman" and intentionally so: the /objective/ of
introducing different names for cyclists and POB into a conversation
is to cause the listener to think about what "cyclist" means or should
mean, in the hope that he will henceforth distinguish between good and
bad people on bicycles in the same way as he does motorists.

But to be honest, I wasn't attempting to lobby for the redefinition of
the term "cyclist", I'm happy to say "bad cyclist" when describing
POB. I'm just trying to respond to the "elitist and cliquey"
accusation about making a distinction, by pointing out that (in my
mind, at least) the threshold is set very low - and I don't feel that
it /is/ elitist or cliquey to have, uh, "various expressive phrases"
for those cyclists whose actions fall significantly short of what we'd
consider competent or considerate or behaviour.

I suspect we're not actually disagreeing.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Al C-F said:

Tony Raven said:

So Mr Dean, what is it about cyclists that causes you to get incensed
about things they do which you happily accept daily from other
drivers?

Wealth. Fitness. Independence. Good looks. Style. Happiness.

I was comparing myself with the other cyclists I saw on my travels yesterday
morning.

I saw 8 people on full suspension gas-pipes wearing grubby hi-vis jackets
and the clothes of manual workers, one person with a Brompton in smart
clothes, one with a hardtail and decent mountain biking clothes, one with a
20 year old road bike in normal clothes and me, with normal clothes and a
decent quality 7-speed utility bike.

Although the story is almost certainly different in places that aren't Stoke
or Walsall, it seems to me that there is some truth in the perception that
cyclists are not the high status* people the statistics say they are.

--
A
*not that I particularly give a toss about status.

John Hearns said:

Simon Dean wrote:
Let's apply your logic, shall we?
Several days a week, I drive across London at the start of a business
trip by car. Day in, day out I drive across London from Docklands to the
start of the M4 or M40 motorways. It takes me between one hour and one
and a half hours to drive the twelve miles.

The start of the M4 is a lot closer than the start of the M40.

Quoted message said:

Thats' right - a bicycle goes faster than me.
So let's get those cars off the road in central London - they're holding up the bicycles.

Quoted message said:

And bluster and posture all you want - if slower vehicles are to get out
of the way of oh-so-important people on their way to oh-so-important
business, then cars should be cleared from the streets of London.

Isn't that what the congestion charge was supposed to do? (At least
along the Thames between Tower Hill and Vauxhall, and soon all the way
to Battersea Bridge).

Ambrose Nankivell said:

[...] one with a
20 year old road bike in normal clothes [...]

My road bike is probable 20 years old. If it broke, I'd repair or replace
it, but why waste it? I don't see why that changes my status.

Quoted message said:

[...] it seems to me that there is some truth in the perception that
cyclists are not the high status* people the statistics say they are.

Cyclists vary. In other news, the sky is blue and the taxman collects
taxes!
--
MJR/slef