A12 in Essex - Bad and Good news

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Peter Fox, Aug 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Very bad news: Another TT cyclist was killed on Monday a couple of miles from the one six weeks ago.
    Another slip-road collision.

    Good news: The CPS have chucked in their hand with regard to prosecuting me for obstruction.
    (Cycling down the A12 in the rush hour) The police will now have a lot of explaining to do.

    Bad news: The Highways Agency and politicians are still pretending everything is rosy. (Please chase
    David Jamieson, Road Safety minister at [email protected] - especially in the light of the
    top item which is highly relevant.)

    Good news: The positive reaction of the public to a _reasonable_ but tough campaigner has been very
    heart warming and makes it easier to do more.

    Bad news: The police refuse to take any action when cycle lanes are used as car parks. eg.
    Dovercourt.

    Good news: They will find it difficult to hide behind their stated policy of "Only act if the road
    is blocked."

    Thanks to all of you who sent words of encouragement. I'm trying to keep a high public profile and
    be a complete pain in the neck for 'the authorities' so this might lead to becoming somebody who can
    help you champion your causes or advise on how you might have a go yourselves.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded

    Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm East Anglian Pub cycle rides
    www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides
     
    Tags:


  2. "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > Bad news: The police refuse to take any action when cycle lanes are used as car parks. eg.
    > Dovercourt.

    At least if cars are parked in cycle lanes you somehow feel less compelled to *use* the
    damned things!
     
  3. John'S Cat

    John'S Cat Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:29:57 +0100, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Good news: The CPS have chucked in their hand with regard to prosecuting me for obstruction.
    >(Cycling down the A12 in the rush hour) The police will now have a lot of explaining to do.

    Congratulations. Has the BBC picked it up yet, like they did with the original story?
     
  4. Frank X

    Frank X Guest

    "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Good news: The CPS have chucked in their hand with regard to prosecuting me for obstruction.
    > (Cycling down the A12 in the rush hour) The police will now have a lot of explaining to do.
    >

    Good news for you, but I think bad news for cyclists. A prosecution would have helped establish what
    the law was and what the police are entitled to
    do.

    Now it will all be brushed under the carpet and the police can behave the same way in future.

    Please don't take this in anyway negatively, I'm very grateful to you and admire the stand you
    have taken.
     
  5. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Following on from Frank X's message. . .
    >
    >"Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> Good news: The CPS have chucked in their hand with regard to prosecuting me for obstruction.
    >> (Cycling down the A12 in the rush hour) The police will now have a lot of explaining to do.
    >>
    >
    >Good news for you, but I think bad news for cyclists. A prosecution would have helped establish
    >what the law was and what the police are entitled to
    >do.
    It would only have established case law if it had been appealed to the High Court. (Which of course
    it would have been - but you have to let the police win in the magistrates then go on from there to
    do that and quite frankly they were going to have an almost impossible task - they had to prove two
    things (a) obstruction and (b) wilful. As soon as they knew I had a competent legal team the CPS
    took one look at the case and caved-in.)

    There is more mileage in making them look silly in public so that they might face up to their
    shortcomings than plodding through legal arguments. This is about _publicity_ and _campaigning_ not
    getting bogged down with legal twaddle.

    >
    >Now it will all be brushed under the carpet and the police can behave the same way in future.
    >
    >Please don't take this in anyway negatively, I'm very grateful to you and admire the stand you
    >have taken.
    FWIW : I'd done a lot of preparation in anticipation of any direct action. One simple point to
    remember is that two wrongs don't make a right. As future direct-actioners are likely to be
    trying to tackle wrongs they should have a clear strategy of which DA is a _helpful part_ not the
    whole thing.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the poster business went to the wall
     
  6. Nc

    Nc Guest

    "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Good news: The CPS have chucked in their hand with regard to prosecuting me for obstruction.
    > (Cycling down the A12 in the rush hour) The police will now have a lot of explaining to do.

    I am pleased, but not surprised.

    Good luck with getting some publicity about it again, you've not many days left before the end of
    the "slack news days" of August. Once they are over, getting cycle campaigns heard will be harder.

    Nigel
     
  7. Frank X

    Frank X Guest

    "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > There is more mileage in making them look silly in public so that they might face up to their
    > shortcomings than plodding through legal arguments. This is about _publicity_ and _campaigning_
    > not getting bogged down with legal twaddle.
    >
    >

    I'm not an expert on PR, but I always feel uncomfortable when the police arrest and charge someone
    but then drop the court case. It smacks to me of abuse of the system.

    AIUI you were cycling in a sensible and legal fashioned, have I misunderstood? So the police
    arresting you was effectively saying that cyclists were second class road users whose rights were
    subordinate to car drivers. I feel this action backs up the prejudice of many car drivers, they do
    not respect a cyclists right to be on the road.

    I would like to see this topic debated more and would have expected a court case to offer more
    publicity.

    Personally I would be happy to see cycling limited on certain routes if in return car safety in
    relation to bikes was improved on other routes.
     
  8. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:46:23 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Frank X" <[email protected]>
    wrote this:-

    >Personally I would be happy to see cycling limited on certain routes if in return car safety in
    >relation to bikes was improved on other routes.

    Who would decide which routes cycling would be limited on?

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  9. Toby

    Toby Guest

    Hi,

    I attended the Public Enquiry way back in April (or maybe May I can't remember) concerning the
    Witham to Hatfield Peverel link road, and I've just had the result. The objections have been upheld
    and agreed by the Secratary of State :)

    The report is over 50 pages long but to summarise the findings:

    Sourther Route

    Prefered Route for, services (pipes etc) & COBA Analysis (haven't a clue what that is!)

    Northern Route

    Prefered Route for, slip roads, ease of construction, Highway Geometry, Provision for Cyclists,
    Predestrians and Equestrians, Trafic Control Measures, Costs at 3Q 2000 Prices, Landscape,
    Townscape, Noise and Vibration, air quality

    No Preference

    Structures, opreation of Lynfield and Latneys Junction, Accident Forcast, drainage.

    Basically (in my opinion) its quite a critical report of the Highway Department because it basically
    contradicts all there justifications for the scheme. Just goes to show what can be achieved when
    enough people object to some of the ridiculous schemes conjured up by Local/Central Government

    Toby
     
  10. [email protected] (Toby)typed

    > Hi,

    > I attended the Public Enquiry way back in April (or maybe May I can't remember) concerning the
    > Witham to Hatfield Peverel link road, and I've just had the result. The objections have been
    > upheld and agreed by the Secratary of State :)

    > The report is over 50 pages long but to summarise the findings:

    > Sourther Route

    > Prefered Route for, services (pipes etc) & COBA Analysis (haven't a clue what that is!)

    Cost/Benefit, I think

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
     
  11. [email protected] (Toby)typed

    > Hi,

    > I attended the Public Enquiry way back in April (or maybe May I can't remember) concerning the
    > Witham to Hatfield Peverel link road, and I've just had the result. The objections have been
    > upheld and agreed by the Secratary of State :)

    > The report is over 50 pages long but to summarise the findings:

    > Sourther Route

    > Prefered Route for, services (pipes etc) & COBA Analysis (haven't a clue what that is!)

    Cost/Benefit, I think

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
     
  12. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Following on from Toby's message. . .
    >Hi,
    >
    >I attended the Public Enquiry way back in April (or maybe May I can't remember) concerning the
    >Witham to Hatfield Peverel link road, and I've just had the result. The objections have been upheld
    >and agreed by the Secratary of State :)
    >
    >The report is over 50 pages long but to summarise the findings:
    >
    >Sourther Route
    >
    >Prefered Route for, services (pipes etc) & COBA Analysis (haven't a clue what that is!)
    >
    >Northern Route
    >
    >Prefered Route for, slip roads, ease of construction, Highway Geometry, Provision for Cyclists,
    >Predestrians and Equestrians, Trafic Control Measures, Costs at 3Q 2000 Prices, Landscape,
    >Townscape, Noise and Vibration, air quality
    >
    >No Preference
    >
    >Structures, opreation of Lynfield and Latneys Junction, Accident Forcast, drainage.
    >
    >Basically (in my opinion) its quite a critical report of the Highway Department because it
    >basically contradicts all there justifications for the scheme. Just goes to show what can be
    >achieved when enough people object to some of the ridiculous schemes conjured up by Local/Central
    >Government
    >
    >Toby

    Your last para. hits the nail on the head.

    The Highways _Agency_ were state funded to the tune of a huge amount yet the objectors were
    completely unsupported and had to work against lacking and late information from the HA. Well
    done to them.

    I expect the local councillors will be whinging about more delays - But that wouldn't have happened
    if the HA weren't so hopelessly managed and stuck in their 'we know best' attitudes.

    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded

    Witham Cycling Campaign www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm East Anglian Pub cycle rides
    www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides
     
  13. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Toby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > I attended the Public Enquiry way back in April (or maybe May I can't remember) concerning the
    > Witham to Hatfield Peverel link road, and I've just had the result. The objections have been
    > upheld and agreed by the Secratary of State :)

    Remarakable job! Expect the courts to overturn comon sense in favour of vested interest, as usual,
    but that is a great result.

    > Prefered Route for, services (pipes etc) & COBA Analysis (haven't a clue what that is!)

    Tautology ;-)

    COBA means COst Benefit Analysis. It's an absurd and fanciful system for justifying things by
    asserting that a traffic jam "costs" millions in lost productivity. It works to our advantage
    when the Government of the day suddenly decides to count the "cost" of lazy bastards who never
    exercise ;-)

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.com
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...