Cycling article in Telegraph.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Simon Mason, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Simon Brooke wrote:

    > I _think_ that you are wrong. For a 'drunk in charge' offence I
    > believe you don't even have to switch the engine on. Road Traffic
    > Act, 1988, chapter 52, paragraph 4, subsection 2:


    Indeed. In fact you don't even need to be in the driver's seat. If you are
    in the passenger seat and the driver is a (perfectly sober) learner, you are
    still "in charge".

    Even if they haven't started the engine.

    I remember an outcry years ago when Plod in Snorbens talked about breath
    testing people as they staggered from pub to car, not with the intention of
    prosecuting, but intending to prevent them from committing the offence in
    the first place. The libertarians insisted it wasn't fair, and that they
    should be allowed to drive off and only stopped if they were driving
    erratically (presumably to allow them a fair chance of killing someone, or
    some such). A very odd point of view, it seems to me that if you deter
    people from getting into the car in the first place there are no losers.
    But there are always people out there who think they are "perfectly safe"
    after five pints because they haven't crashed yet.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
    University
     


  2. Duncan Gray

    Duncan Gray Guest

    "Robert Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    > mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
    >
    > > (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when
    > > in charge of a motor vehicle which is on a road or other public
    > > place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an
    > > offence.
    > >
    > > There would be no need for a subsection 2 if you had to actually drive
    > > the vehicle, as subsection 1 would cover it.

    >
    > I've always wondered whether this means that I'm not allowed to have a
    > couple of drinks while using the camper van. Is a campsite a public place?
    > What about 'wild camping' on common land? (Though in the latter case I

    would
    > tend not to drink in case we were 'moved on' either by plod or hordes of
    > locals with pitchforks and flaming torches).
    >


    The test is "was the person likely to drive while he remained impaired".
    If you're camped up for the night then clearly the answer would be no and
    tou'd be alright.

    --
    Duncan Gray

    www.duncolm.co.uk
    also The Mountaineering Council of Scotland
    www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk
     
  3. Duncan Gray

    Duncan Gray Guest

    "Jack Ouzzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:54:47 GMT, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > There may be a couple of things wrong with the reporting in these
    > posts .........................
    >
    > Case 1 the lady could well appeal, as under law (don't quote me, it's
    > very technical) there is a certain distance that has to be driven and
    > 25 meters would not count. If she was prosecuted for being 'drunk in
    > charge' that is another matter.


    That doesn't sound right to me.
    There is a precedent of a driver who was caught while filling up the tank in
    a petrol station. The act of filling the tank was held to be part of the
    driving process and that's what he was convicted of, not being in charge of.


    --
    Duncan Gray

    www.duncolm.co.uk
    also The Mountaineering Council of Scotland
    www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk
     
  4. Paul - xxx

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? vaguely muttered something like ...

    > I remember an outcry years ago when Plod in Snorbens talked about breath
    > testing people as they staggered from pub to car, not with the intention
    > of prosecuting, but intending to prevent them from committing the offence
    > in the first place. The libertarians insisted it wasn't fair, and that
    > they should be allowed to drive off and only stopped if they were driving
    > erratically (presumably to allow them a fair chance of killing someone, or
    > some such)


    Heheheh, I remember this. Apparently "Civil Liberties" means you _should_
    be allowed to commit a crime without being stopped. No-one can stop you
    from committing a crime .. they could only 'do' you if an offence had been
    committed ... But no-one was actually being 'done' they were just being
    warned that they might be about to commit an offence and were suggested
    better courses of action ...

    Made the mind boggle ... ;)


    --
    Paul ...

    (8(|) Homer Rules !!!

    "A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
     
  5. "Eiron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > JohnB wrote:
    >
    > > Eiron wrote:
    > >
    > >>JohnB wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>95% of the riders who have taken our training over this summer

    (to the
    > >>>National Standards) have said they will cycle more as a result.
    > >>
    > >>What is the new "National Standard?"


    ----------------------------

    Britain has been working on a national standard for bike training.
    At long last I've found out what you are supposed to learn. Here's
    the list.



    National Standards - description of levels



    Level 1A



    A1 You can get on and off the bike without help.

    A2 You can stop without help.

    A3 You can start without help.

    A4 You can ride along without help for 3 minutes or more.

    A5 You can make the bike go where you want to.



    Level 1B



    B1 You can use your gears.

    B2 You can stop quickly.

    B3 You can swerve to avoid objects.

    B4 You can look all around, including behind, without wobbling.

    B5 You can signal right and left without wobbling.

    B6 you can look behind and signal at the same time without wobbling.



    Level 2



    1. you can start an on-road journey.

    2. you can finish an on-road journey.

    3. You are aware of everything around you as you ride including
    people coming up behind you.

    4. You understand where to ride on the roads you are using.

    5. You can pass parked or slower moving vehicles etc.

    6. You are able to pass side roads.

    7. You can turn right and left from both minor and major roads on
    the roads you are using looking behind and signalling when you need
    to.

    8. you look ahead and plan in advance to get into the correct
    position.

    9. You can decide if a cycle lane etc is going to help your journey.



    Level 3



    1. You understand how to use roundabouts.

    2. You can use junctions controlled by traffic lights.

    3. You can use multi lane roads and turn off and into them.

    4. You understand filtering and can decide when to filter and when
    to wait.



    There are, I imagine, differing views in Britain about what are
    acceptable and unacceptable ways of performing some of the above
    tasks. The first batch of officially qualified instructors have now
    been certified, but I do not know the range of views they are
    required or permitted to hold, and methods they are required or
    permitted to advocate.



    In London, at least, I would think teaching is fairly reliable.
    There are two commercial bike teaching outfits, one of which is quite
    a big concern, doing courses for local authorities, as well as
    private teaching. This firm, Cycle Training UK
    <www.cycletraining.co.uk>, has its own manual for its instructors,
    but I haven't seen it.



    Jeremy Parker
     
  6. Jack Ouzzi

    Jack Ouzzi Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >in message <[email protected]>, Jack Ouzzi
    >('[email protected]') wrote:


    >>>"A woman broke down in tears at Basingstoke Magistrate's court after
    >>>learning she was to lose her licence after drinking and driving."


    This was the original post ............ drinking and driving ........

    >>>Good she was done. But the incredible thing is that she just *HAD* to
    >>>drive 25metres.


    >>
    >> Case 1 the lady could well appeal, as under law (don't quote me, it's
    >> very technical) there is a certain distance that has to be driven and
    >> 25 meters would not count. If she was prosecuted for being 'drunk in
    >> charge' that is another matter.

    >
    >I _think_ that you are wrong. For a 'drunk in charge' offence I believe
    >you don't even have to switch the engine on. Road Traffic Act, 1988,
    >chapter 52, paragraph 4, subsection 2:
    >


    If you read the last part of my reply properly, it says 'drunk in
    charge' is another matter as you rightly point out.

    Driving whilst under the influence of drink and/or drugs, and Drunk in
    charge of a motor vehicle are completely seperate offences.

    There have been thousands of people 'let off' because the incorrect
    charge had been put ............ by Police and CPS whoopsies ........
     
  7. [snip]

    > Reading the rather limited selection of statements from members of
    > public in the Telegraph article, it would appear that the general

    public
    > are unaware of the fact that they have a problem. For example

    Doreen
    > Eades, 74, said:
    >
    > "It sounds like a complete and utter waste of money.
    > I cannot think of any adult who needs to be taught how to ride a

    bike
    > properly...."
    >
    > If Doreen is representative of the way people in Tettenhall view
    > cycling, then no-one in the area is going to volunteer themselves

    for
    > cycling lessons because they feel that they do not require any

    further
    > training.

    cycling exploits

    I suspect that the only reason that cycle training gets into council
    courses is that the councillors expect the syllabus to be:

    Getting in the way of motorists is a SIN

    and the WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH

    - my thanks to John Forester for raising this point years ago.

    In London, I gather, 80% of adult course takers are women.

    In the USA the problem of attracting students has always been
    difficult. The best way found has been to include riding with bike
    repair, and to emphasize bike repair in the advertising.

    Jeremy Parker
     
  8. Jack Ouzzi

    Jack Ouzzi Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:53:37 +0100, "Duncan Gray"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Jack Ouzzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:54:47 GMT, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> There may be a couple of things wrong with the reporting in these
    >> posts .........................
    >>
    >> Case 1 the lady could well appeal, as under law (don't quote me, it's
    >> very technical) there is a certain distance that has to be driven and
    >> 25 meters would not count. If she was prosecuted for being 'drunk in
    >> charge' that is another matter.

    >
    >That doesn't sound right to me.
    >There is a precedent of a driver who was caught while filling up the tank in
    >a petrol station. The act of filling the tank was held to be part of the
    >driving process and that's what he was convicted of, not being in charge of.


    Well not necessarily the act of 'filling the tank' How did the car get
    into the petrol station??? Was the engine still warm ??? must be
    considered ............ otherwise the chap may have grounds for an
    appeal against sentence, conviction or indeed both. Also extremely
    difficult to comment on a single individual case (like I did) unless
    you are actually in court to here evidence for and mitigation against
    the case.


    As I stated, a very complicated law, and with the right advocate, and
    lots of money, it is very suprising how many loopholes there are.
     
  9. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    JohnB wrote:

    >
    > The court was told how days
    > before her arrest Ambler had been thrown from a horse which had then
    > stepped on her head leaving her in need of stitches."
    >


    B*gg*r, helmet saved her life™ ;-)

    Tony
     
  10. davek

    davek Guest

    JohnB wrote:
    > Good she was done. But the incredible thing is that she just *HAD* to
    > drive 25metres.
    > It really beggars belief.


    I wonder what she'd do if she lived in my street - it's rare that I can
    park my car less than 25 metres from my home.

    d.
     
  11. On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:22:49 +0100,
    Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Level 2
    >
    > 1. you can start an on-road journey.
    >
    > 2. you can finish an on-road journey.


    Surely if you start you must finish at some stage? Or are there people
    who just start and are doomed to pedal forever more?

    --
    Andy Leighton => [email protected]
    "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
    - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
     
  12. Eiron

    Eiron Guest

    Jeremy Parker wrote:

    > ----------------------------
    >
    > Britain has been working on a national standard for bike training.
    > At long last I've found out what you are supposed to learn. Here's
    > the list.


    (Long list deleted.)

    Thanks.

    All that looking behind.
    Some of us are not as flexible as we once were. :-(
     
  13. > The libertarians insisted
    > it wasn't fair


    I'm guessing the libertarians were against the police being able to _force_
    people to take the tests. A libertarian taking away the right of a
    policeman to enquire whether I'd like a test is a bit silly.

    When I think about it more it's a cunning idea. Plod asks someone if they
    want a 'free' breath test. Anyone that says no will waft a load of beer
    breath at plod as they decline. Plod is then able to _demand_ a test as
    soon as they get behind the wheel :)
     
  14. njf>badger

    njf>badger Guest

    Mike Quin wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Someone I know[1] lost his license being sat in his driver's seat with
    >>no engine going.

    >
    >
    > Anecdotal, but I've heard it's possible to be considered drunk in charge
    > of a vehicle simply by being in possesion of the keys (even if you are
    > just sleeping in the back).


    DIC, scots? police successfully persecuted a man answering the door to a
    uniform copper who wanted to look at his car (lights reported not
    working or similar), man takes keys from pocket, copper smells alcohol,
    having looked and found no vehicle fault, tests man for excess alcohol
    on basis of DIC (had keys), finds excess, arrests etc etc

    Sleeping it off in the back isn't an option, even in a camper van on a
    camp site where the public have access its DIC...

    Niel.
     
  15. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Andy Leighton
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:22:49 +0100,
    > Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Level 2
    >>
    >> 1. you can start an on-road journey.
    >>
    >> 2. you can finish an on-road journey.

    >
    > Surely if you start you must finish at some stage? Or are there
    > people who just start and are doomed to pedal forever more?


    Why do you thing there are so many Cycling Dutchmen?

    (woo-woo-woo-woo woo-woo-woo-woo)

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    [ This mind intentionally left blank ]
     
  16. Jack Ouzzi

    Jack Ouzzi Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:55:54 +0100, davek <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >JohnB wrote:
    >> Good she was done. But the incredible thing is that she just *HAD* to
    >> drive 25metres.
    >> It really beggars belief.

    >
    >I wonder what she'd do if she lived in my street - it's rare that I can
    >park my car less than 25 metres from my home.
    >


    Ah but you could always cycle to your car :)
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen wrote:
    >On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:54:47 GMT someone who may be JohnB
    ><[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    >>Police asked her to give a breath sample but she refused and said 'I'm
    >>not doing that, I'm going to bed'."
    >>"She then tried to run away

    >
    >So, she was probably capable of walking 25 metres then.


    She could (at least in theory) have been incapable of walking 25 metres
    but drunk enough to try (and fail) to run away anyway.


    >I find it difficult to have any sympathy for this miserable
    >specimen.


    Me too.
     
  18. JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "She then tried to run away but was restrained by police who pinned her
    > to the bonnet of their car and arrested her. The court was told how days
    > before her arrest Ambler had been thrown from a horse which had then
    > stepped on her head leaving her in need of stitches."


    Well, that's at least more plausible than the usual one we get in
    the papers round here: The drunk more often than not had "never
    done it before in 35 years of driving". A lot of criminals who
    go through the courts in Harrogate seem to be first-timers. Either
    they're exteeeeemly unlucky to have been caught on the first and only
    occasion, or we have a particularly inept bunch of first time criminals
    in this part of the country. Either that or they're plain liars.

    > "When the magistrates told Ambler she would be banned from driving for
    > twelve months, fined a total of £150 and ordered to pay £34 court costs
    > she broke down in tears."


    <rant>

    Most motoring offences get on my goat far out of proportion to the
    severity in the eyes of the law not only because the punishment
    often does not fit the crime but particularly because most of them
    are so easy to avoid. Speeding, for example, is one of the easiest,
    but it seems to be one that few people can be bothered avoiding.
    Sure, I'm sure there are places where the speed limit might be
    ambiguous, perhaps because of obstructed signage or whatever, but
    in the vast majority of cases speed limits are clear and unambigous,
    but routinely ignored. Why? How is it so hard? How flipping
    difficult is it to avoid driving drunk? Again, I can imagine that
    there are "legitimate" causes (some medications, some temporary
    conditions interfering with your metabolising of alcohol, etc)
    but most of the time it's just stupid people who go to the pub, drink
    beer and get into their cars. Why just a 12 month ban?

    </rant>

    --
    Trevor Barton
     
  19. > DIC, scots? police successfully persecuted a man answering the door to a
    > uniform copper who wanted to look at his car (lights reported not
    > working or similar), man takes keys from pocket, copper smells alcohol,
    > having looked and found no vehicle fault, tests man for excess alcohol
    > on basis of DIC (had keys), finds excess, arrests etc etc


    I'm guessing the copper had seen him pull into the driveway, or the guy
    told the copper he'd just driven it?
     
  20. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:49:09 +0100, "Duncan Gray"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The test is "was the person likely to drive while he remained impaired".
    >If you're camped up for the night then clearly the answer would be no and
    >tou'd be alright.


    Is that the test? I seem to remember a case of a man prosectued after
    being found asleep on the back seat. He knew he was over the limit so
    he decided to sleep in the car until the morning. However, he was
    judged to be technically in charge of the vehicle as he had the
    ignition key on him. As I recall it if he had hidden the key by the
    road somewhere he would have been OK. However, he might have had a job
    finding it again on sobering up.

    --
    Dave...

    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
     
Loading...
Loading...