159 mph copper gets tummy tickled




> Complete **** really. Though I hope that if such a situation arises
> again TPTB get an ass kicking for failing to apply appropriate
> procedures.


If policemen and michael schumaker can do then so can I.How could it
be dangerous for anyone to do 100mph anywhere if it's not for this
idiot to do 160 in public roads where he likes?If he wants to test let
him do it on a track.The only difference would be less likelihood of
involving innocent road users.
As for his excuse that he was on a serious mission to test his new
equipment, and that we should all accept the risk his heroic action
poses to our families, well now pull the other one please.
If they cannot get him and his instructor apologist off the force the
reputation of the police goes down another notch.
TerryJ
 
D

David Martin

Guest
Adam Lea wrote:
> "Stephen Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > "Budstaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm
> >>

> > Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
> > guilty of riding on the road?
> >
> >

>
> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.


No he wasn't. He was found guilty of riding without due consideration
for other road users because he was on the road instead of a slow,
glass and dog turd strewn cycle path that would have required 6 A road
carriageway crossings at rush hour to negotiate.

...d
 
B

Budstaff

Guest
"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Stephen Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Budstaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm
>>>

>> Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a cyclist
>> guilty of riding on the road?
>>
>>

>
> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.
>

And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to be
obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart of
the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who only
has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of marching
troops and animals being driven enjoy).

Given the facts of the case the cyclist _was_ effectively found guilty of
riding on the road, as no credible case for obstruction was made. The fact
that he was found guilty of inconsiderate cycling, a vague offence if ever
there was one, highlights only the judge and police's prejudice against
cyclists, their ignorance of the law, and their complete disregard of the
DfT's manual of best practice, Cyclecraft (?), which was being followed.
 
A

Adam Lea

Guest
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Stephen Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > "Budstaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> >> Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?
>> >>
>> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm
>> >>
>> > Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
>> > cyclist
>> > guilty of riding on the road?
>> >
>> >

>>
>> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

>
> No he wasn't. He was found guilty of riding without due consideration
> for other road users because he was on the road instead of a slow,
> glass and dog turd strewn cycle path that would have required 6 A road
> carriageway crossings at rush hour to negotiate.
>
> ..d
>


Really? I thought he was prosecuted because he was holding up a queue of
traffic which couldn't get past because of double white lines. If the
cyclist had oppportunities to pull in safely and let the traffic past but
didn't then the cyclist can be prosecuted for causing an obstruction (which
is one form of riding without due consideration).

I find it hard to believe that the cyclist was prosecuted because he was on
the road instead of the cycle path. There is no such law as far as I know.
 
A

Adam Lea

Guest
"Budstaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Stephen Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> "Budstaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm
>>>>
>>> Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
>>> cyclist guilty of riding on the road?
>>>
>>>

>>
>> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.
>>

> And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to be
> obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart of
> the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who only
> has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of marching
> troops and animals being driven enjoy).
>


I merely stated what I thought the cyclist was prosecuted for. It doesn't
follow that I agree with the prosecution. In my opinion the verdict was a
pile of toss.

Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.
 
D

David Martin

Guest
Adam Lea wrote:
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > Adam Lea wrote:
> >> "Stephen Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >> > "Budstaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]
> >> >> Well you could hardly even call it a slapped wrist could you?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm
> >> >>
> >> > Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
> >> > cyclist
> >> > guilty of riding on the road?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.

> >
> > No he wasn't. He was found guilty of riding without due consideration
> > for other road users because he was on the road instead of a slow,
> > glass and dog turd strewn cycle path that would have required 6 A road
> > carriageway crossings at rush hour to negotiate.
> >
> > ..d
> >

>
> Really? I thought he was prosecuted because he was holding up a queue of
> traffic which couldn't get past because of double white lines.


There was no queue unless you count a line of 1 police car. The few
other cars just overtook.
And slowing down traffic is not the same as obstruction.

> If the
> cyclist had oppportunities to pull in safely and let the traffic past but
> didn't then the cyclist can be prosecuted for causing an obstruction (which
> is one form of riding without due consideration).


No he can't. He has to actually stop the traffic moving tocause
obstruction.


> I find it hard to believe that the cyclist was prosecuted because he was on
> the road instead of the cycle path. There is no such law as far as I know.


That is exactly what the judge found. Becasue there was an alternative
route, however inconvenient for the cyclist, the judge ruled it
inconsiderate for the cyclist to not use it in preference to the road.

...d
 
S

Sue White

Guest
Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>
>>>>>
>>>> Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
>>>> cyclist guilty of riding on the road?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.
>>>

>> And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to be
>> obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart of
>> the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who only
>> has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of marching
>> troops and animals being driven enjoy).
>>

>
>I merely stated what I thought the cyclist was prosecuted for. It doesn't
>follow that I agree with the prosecution. In my opinion the verdict was a
>pile of toss.
>
>Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
>exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.
>
>

There is now.
A lot of Uk law consists of judges' interpretations of what the Statutes
and Statutory Instruments mean.

It's irrelevant that the judgement is against government policy (to
encourage cycling) and against government guidance (the Highway Code and
Cyclecraft both tell you what the government thinks the law is) because
the government can easily be wrong here.

In my day job I deal with the Department for Work and Pensions, which
frequently passes legislation that doesn't say what the DWP meant it to
say (so it's against policy) or what the DWP's guidance says it says.
Very often, once a judge has found agains them they "restore the
legislative intention" by passing yet more legislation to correct their
mistakes.

It's hard to imagine the current government passing a law to restore our
right to use the public highway at a convenient speed, so the appeal
against that judgement really is important.

--
Sue ]:(:)

My current view is that the judgement means there's a 10mph speed limit for cyclists on roads with
double white lines where a cycle path is within sight.
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Sue White <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
> >
> >Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
> >exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.

>
> There is now.


I think not.

> A lot of Uk law consists of judges' interpretations of what the Statutes
> and Statutory Instruments mean.


I believe that this judgement does not establish precedent.

> In my day job I deal with the Department for Work and Pensions, which
> frequently passes legislation


I don't think government departments pass legislation.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
P

Phil Cook

Guest
Ian Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Sue White <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>> >
>> >Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
>> >exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.

>>
>> There is now.

>
>I think not.


No there isn't.

1) This particular court isn't high enough to set a precedent

2) There is an appeal pending.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
 
S

Sue White

Guest
Ian Smith <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Sue White <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>> >
>> >Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
>> >exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.

>>
>> There is now.

>
>I think not.
>
>> A lot of Uk law consists of judges' interpretations of what the Statutes
>> and Statutory Instruments mean.

>
>I believe that this judgement does not establish precedent.


OK - just as well since it's so hard to work out what precedent it
doesn't establish.

>> In my day job I deal with the Department for Work and Pensions, which
>> frequently passes legislation

>
>I don't think government departments pass legislation.
>


Theoretically not, but in practice, whatever they say goes through on
the nod. Usually without any fresh primary legislation, but if it's
really unavoidable they can always sneak it through by tacking it onto a
bill about something completely different.

--
Sue ]:(:)
 
A

Adam Lea

Guest
"Sue White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
>>>>> cyclist guilty of riding on the road?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.
>>>>
>>> And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to
>>> be
>>> obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart
>>> of
>>> the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who
>>> only
>>> has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of
>>> marching
>>> troops and animals being driven enjoy).
>>>

>>
>>I merely stated what I thought the cyclist was prosecuted for. It doesn't
>>follow that I agree with the prosecution. In my opinion the verdict was a
>>pile of toss.
>>
>>Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
>>exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.
>>
>>

> There is now.
> A lot of Uk law consists of judges' interpretations of what the Statutes
> and Statutory Instruments mean.
>
> It's irrelevant that the judgement is against government policy (to
> encourage cycling) and against government guidance (the Highway Code and
> Cyclecraft both tell you what the government thinks the law is) because
> the government can easily be wrong here.
>
> In my day job I deal with the Department for Work and Pensions, which
> frequently passes legislation that doesn't say what the DWP meant it to
> say (so it's against policy) or what the DWP's guidance says it says. Very
> often, once a judge has found agains them they "restore the legislative
> intention" by passing yet more legislation to correct their mistakes.
>
> It's hard to imagine the current government passing a law to restore our
> right to use the public highway at a convenient speed, so the appeal
> against that judgement really is important.
>
> --
> Sue ]:(:)
>
> My current view is that the judgement means there's a 10mph speed limit
> for cyclists on roads with
> double white lines where a cycle path is within sight.
>
>


Could you point me to an official reference that clearly states that cycling
on the road is illegal. It seems odd given that none of the police that I
have passed as I have been cycling round the local area have seen fit to
pull me over.
 
J

John B

Guest
Adam Lea wrote:

> Could you point me to an official reference that clearly states that cycling
> on the road is illegal.


Perhaps many police think it _is_ illegal.

The last three cycling bobbies I've seen have been:
..... Riding up a pedestrianised street;
..... Riding down a footpath clearly marked with a no cycling sign; and
..... Using a mobile phone while riding along a pavement.

It kinda knocks one's confidence in the police's knowledge of cycling law
somewhat.

John B
 
S

Stephen Clark

Guest
"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> Adam Lea wrote:
>
>> Could you point me to an official reference that clearly states that
>> cycling
>> on the road is illegal.

>
> Perhaps many police think it _is_ illegal.
>
> The last three cycling bobbies I've seen have been:
> .... Riding up a pedestrianised street;
> .... Riding down a footpath clearly marked with a no cycling sign; and
> .... Using a mobile phone while riding along a pavement.
>
> It kinda knocks one's confidence in the police's knowledge of cycling law
> somewhat.
>
> John B
>

Ah, arn't police officers above the law? Re the police driver who was vastly
exceeding the speed limit in order to test his stills. Maybe these other
officers were also testing their skills?
 
S

Sue White

Guest
Adam Lea <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>
>Could you point me to an official reference that clearly states that cycling
>on the road is illegal. It seems odd given that none of the police that I
>have passed as I have been cycling round the local area have seen fit to
>pull me over.
>


The position at present is that you have a right to cycle on the road.
Except motorways, and where there's a traffic order saying you mustn't.

For more info, Google on "Daniel Cadden" and read his letters to the
Shropshire Star.

I'm not especially keen on conspiracy theories, but if West Murkier
Police were just prosecuting an obstructive road user, how was it that
they picked on this activist and not on some uneducated scrote on a
cheap mountain bike?

Now that I've read those letters I find it awfully hard to believe they
weren't picking on him.

--
Sue ]:(:)

Every citizen should have the right to carry a table leg!
 
H

Helen Deborah Vecht

Guest
Sue White <[email protected]>typed

> Now that I've read those letters I find it awfully hard to believe they
> weren't picking on him.


I have to agree :-(

So much for fair policing and unbiased judiciary...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 

Similar threads