Cycling Prosecutions

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Richard Goodman, Jun 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tags:


  2. In message <[email protected]>, Richard Goodman
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Maybe an answer to those who complain that cycling prosecutions don't happen - some stats (albeit a
    >bit out of date) that I came across:
    >http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199495/ldhansrd/v
    >o950109/text/50109w04.htm
    >
    >(scroll down to the question on "Cycling Prosecutions")
    >
    >I wonder how things have changed since? Up or down? The trend was certainly down over the period
    >considered above, including those for taking without consent..
    >
    >Rich
    >
    >
    The downward trend could be due to a reduction of police interest in prosecuting (other priorities)
    rather than an improvement in cyclist behaviour.
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  3. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    Richard Goodman wrote:

    >Maybe an answer to those who complain that cycling prosecutions don't happen - some stats (albeit a
    >bit out of date) that I came across:
    >http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199495/ldhansrd/vo950109/text/50109w04.htm

    Hey... I bet I was included in those statistics. In the early 1990s I was prosecuted for:

    driving under the influence of drink and drug by a pedal cyclist failing to comply with traffic
    light signals failing to stop when demanded by a police officer no lights at night

    I was found innocent of all charges.
    --
    remove remove to reply
     
  4. "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Richard Goodman wrote:
    >
    > >Maybe an answer to those who complain that cycling prosecutions don't happen - some stats (albeit
    > >a bit out of date) that I came across:
    >
    >http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199495/ldhansrd/vo95
    0109/text/50109w04.htm
    >
    > Hey... I bet I was included in those statistics. In the early 1990s I was prosecuted for:
    >
    > driving under the influence of drink and drug by a pedal cyclist failing to comply with traffic
    > light signals failing to stop when demanded by a police officer no lights at night
    >
    > I was found innocent of all charges.
    >

    Just out of interest - what were the circumstances?
     
  5. [email protected] wrote:
    > I was found innocent of all charges.

    Are you sure you weren't found not guilty?
     
  6. Frank°

    Frank° Guest

    "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Hey... I bet I was included in those statistics. In the early 1990s I was prosecuted for:
    >
    > driving under the influence of drink and drug by a pedal cyclist failing to comply with traffic
    > light signals failing to stop when demanded by a police officer no lights at night
    >
    > I was found innocent of all charges.
    > --

    I did some of that once in the mid 80's.

    I was found unconscious lying on the pavement.
     
  7. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    >Just out of interest - what were the circumstances?

    Drink cycling was a separate and hilarious case. I'll deal with that later.

    Cycling home from work at 10.30 (I was then the manager of an off license). I had a faulty rear
    light. Tap it and it worked, tap it again and it went out - that kind of thing. Came to a set of
    lights, all roads clear in all directions, car behind me. Went over the lights. Car behind was a
    policeman. Started flashing his lights, I pulled into my service road, and to my house ignoring the
    police. They nabbed me just as I was about to close the door. They let me put my bike away then
    spoke to me in their car - I said nothing other than give my name, and pointed to where I live. I
    live at number 81A, they wrote down 81. I never got any summons. I was convicted in my absence, I
    had the convictions quashed as I was not given the opportunity to defend myself.

    Drink cycling...

    I'd had a pint. Started to cycle home. Bus blocking both lanes of Greenwich High Street due to
    parked cars on both sides of road. Bus reversed to try to clear a path for oncoming traffic - nearly
    backs into me. I scoot round the inside of the bus and tap on the windscreen, "watch where you're
    reversing mate". Police car on opposite carriageway sees this and is in pursuit. "Please step off
    your bicycle, sir". I complied. "Have you been drinking, sir?" "Yes." "Then I must ask you to
    accompany me to the police station." "Why?" "Because it's an offence to be drunk in charge of a
    bicycle." "Who said anything about being drunk?" "You did, sir." "No I didn't."

    Blah blah blah.

    At the police station I was seen by a doctor who inexplicably pronounced me drunk!

    In court the policeman described how I smashed my fist into the windscreen of the bus, yelled abuse
    at the driver and ridden off so that he had to drive at speeds of up to 35 mph to catch me.

    The bus driver described how I tapped my knuckles on the windscreen of his bus to draw his attention
    to something before I cycled off.

    The magistrate asked the prosecutor if she believed that Mr Gonzalez could cycle like the Yellow
    Jersey in the Tour de France and still be drunk.

    The prosecutor replied that some cyclists cycle better after a few drinks.

    The magistrate asked if I had anything to say about that.

    I said that I thought the prosecutor had seen too many Carling Black Label adverts, and that she
    believed that it refreshed the cyclists other beers could not reach.

    The magistrate went red in the face, puffed himself up, and said, "NO! No! no! Mr Gonzalez, that is
    quite wrong. It wasn't Carling Black Label... It was Heineken."
    --
    remove remove to reply
     
  8. The Mark

    The Mark Guest

    Gonzalez wrote:
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    >> Just out of interest - what were the circumstances?
    >
    > Drink cycling was a separate and hilarious case. I'll deal with that later.
    >
    > Cycling home from work at 10.30 (I was then the manager of an off license). I had a faulty rear
    > light. Tap it and it worked, tap it again and it went out - that kind of thing.

    I had lights like that once. I was stopped at about 1am. Plod must have thought I had nicked the
    bike as they asked me what colour it was.

    They then said my rear light was off. I then turned round slapped the light, it came on and they
    said I could go.
    --
    Mark
     
  9. "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > >Just out of interest - what were the circumstances?
    >
    > Drink cycling was a separate and hilarious case. I'll deal with that later.
    >
    > Cycling home from work at 10.30 (I was then the manager of an off license). I had a faulty rear
    > light. Tap it and it worked, tap it again and it went out - that kind of thing. Came to a set of
    > lights, all roads clear in all directions, car behind me. Went over the lights.

    What colour were the lights?

    >Car behind was a policeman. Started flashing his lights, I pulled into my service road, and to my
    >house ignoring the police.

    So you were guilty of "failing to stop when demanded by a police officer".

    > I live at number 81A, they wrote down 81. I never got any summons. I was convicted in my absence,
    > I had the convictions quashed as I was not given the opportunity to defend myself.
    >

    Fair enough, though I'm alarmed that if the CPS thought it so important to prosecute you in the
    first place that they didn't/couldn't prosecute in fairer circumstances.

    > Drink cycling...
    >

    Quite an amusing amusing tale as I'm not involved though, brightened up my day!

    More seriously, that's appalling! No wonder crime is rising if that's the level of competance in
    the police!
     
  10. "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Just out of interest - what were the circumstances?
    > >>
    > >> Drink cycling was a separate and hilarious case. I'll deal with that later.
    > >>
    > >> Cycling home from work at 10.30 (I was then the manager of an off license). I had a faulty rear
    > >> light. Tap it and it worked, tap it again and it went out - that kind of thing. Came to a set
    > >> of lights, all roads clear in all directions, car behind me. Went over the lights.
    > >
    > >What colour were the lights?
    >
    > Red.
    >

    Tsk tsk. :)

    I'd have no sympathy if you got bollocked, but what you did wasn't entirely unreasonable.

    Which raises an issue - why don't we have part time signals like they do on the continent, so
    signalised junctions become standard give-way (or stop) affairs off peak? Saves time and
    electricity!

    In fact, why don't we have continental transport policy? They provide the necessary PT, motorways,
    cycleways etc., and sensible laws, enforced by sensible officers (and cameras where sensible),
    obeyed by sensible road users, making getting from A to B pleasant and easy by whatever means?

    (OK, I know they're not perfect, but they are sooooo much better)

    > >>Car behind was a policeman. Started flashing his lights, I pulled into my service road, and to
    > >>my house ignoring the police.
    > >
    > >So you were guilty of "failing to stop when demanded by a police
    officer".
    >
    > Maybe, but I stopped within 100 yards. I don't stop for any old motorist who flashes their lights,
    > and the officers hadn't identified themselves as police.
    >

    Fair enough.

    <snip>

    A bit OT - I noticed in a another thread you said you are trolling u.r.d. sugessting silly ideas.
    *Please* don't. I'm not trying to play netkop, and I know you know such ideas are silly, and I know
    I do, but I don't trust pressure groups and government to realise it's silly, and I'm scared they'll
    force yet more stupid ideas through....

    :)
     
  11. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    >A bit OT - I noticed in a another thread you said you are trolling u.r.d. sugessting silly ideas.
    >*Please* don't. I'm not trying to play netkop, and I know you know such ideas are silly, and I know
    >I do, but I don't trust pressure groups and government to realise it's silly, and I'm scared
    >they'll force yet more stupid ideas through....

    The ideas are not that silly. GPS on every car, and speeding tickets issued automatically when
    someone speeds. I have also pointed out that speed limits are just that - not a speed target.
    --
    remove remove to reply
     
  12. "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > >A bit OT - I noticed in a another thread you said you are trolling u.r.d. sugessting silly ideas.
    > >*Please* don't. I'm not trying to play netkop,
    and I
    > >know you know such ideas are silly, and I know I do, but I don't trust pressure groups and
    > >government to realise it's silly, and I'm scared
    they'll
    > >force yet more stupid ideas through....
    >
    > The ideas are not that silly. GPS on every car, and speeding tickets issued automatically when
    > someone speeds. I have also pointed out that speed limits are just that - not a speed target.

    I was referring more to the 15 MPH blanket reduction you "suggested". I assume that was in jest

    GPS limiters would be fine, as long as the limits were sensible (as they generally are, though
    increasingly less so. Two changes I'd make would be 80MPH for motorways and 20 MPH for non-arterial
    urban roads).

    Better than having limiters, as you don't get the zombie effect. Has practicality issues of course,
    but the principle is fine. I'd support
    if/when it became feasible.
     
  13. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:36:39 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The magistrate went red in the face, puffed himself up, and said, "NO! No! no! Mr Gonzalez, that is
    >quite wrong. It wasn't Carling Black Label... It was Heineken."

    At this point you must have the thought the case was beginning to swing in your favour. A good thing
    you didn't need a Hamlet cigar afterwards. :)

    --
    Dave...
     
  14. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:38:51 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The ideas are not that silly. GPS on every car, and speeding tickets issued automatically when
    >someone speeds.

    Or transponders. It'll happen eventually. It's only a matter of time, and a good thing too.

    --
    Dave...
     
  15. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    Dave Kahn wrote:

    >On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:36:39 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The magistrate went red in the face, puffed himself up, and said, "NO! No! no! Mr Gonzalez, that
    >>is quite wrong. It wasn't Carling Black Label... It was Heineken."
    >
    >At this point you must have the thought the case was beginning to swing in your favour. A good
    >thing you didn't need a Hamlet cigar afterwards. :)

    The prosecutor chose to drop the case immediately after this exchange.
    --
    remove remove to reply
     
  16. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    >I was referring more to the 15 MPH blanket reduction you "suggested". I assume that was in jest

    I was only prodding them a little with a stick. You should have seen them squirm!!!

    >GPS limiters would be fine, as long as the limits were sensible (as they generally are, though
    >increasingly less so. Two changes I'd make would be 80MPH for motorways and 20 MPH for non-arterial
    >urban roads).
    >
    >Better than having limiters, as you don't get the zombie effect. Has practicality issues of course,
    >but the principle is fine. I'd support
    >if/when it became feasible.
    >

    --
    remove remove to reply
     
  17. "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > >I was referring more to the 15 MPH blanket reduction you "suggested". I assume that was in jest
    >
    > I was only prodding them a little with a stick. You should have seen them squirm!!!
    >

    As I said, you know you're being silly, I know you're being silly. But someone will think you're
    serious - worse some idiot will thinks its a good idea (see Transport 2000 and the ABD). Worse
    still, New Labour insists on caving in to pressure groups in order to avoid bad press.

    It's not so much the fact that you're prodding them that irritates me - just the fact it makes the
    transport debate that bit more polarised. It's quite polarised as it is - the reason why transport
    policy in Britain has constantly failed since the war is because there has never been any balence -
    it's always been "anyone on the bus is the failure" Thatcherism or "the car is always evil, people
    should go by train (but not complain about
    it)" Blairism. If only transport policy was based on reality instead of bigotry and pathetic
    political ideology.

    Err, sorry for the off-the-rails (no pun intended) rant, but I'm really passionate about
    transport and why its gone so wrong in the UK, and I've had a few, so my train of thought is
    steaming out of control!
     
  18. "Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    <snip>
    > The magistrate went red in the face, puffed himself up, and said, "NO! No! no! Mr Gonzalez, that
    > is quite wrong. It wasn't Carling Black Label... It was Heineken."

    Hilarious story. The mag must have been a man who took his beers seriously!

    But, I guess those multiple charges make you a serial offender then ;-).

    To get back to the point that started this thread, it might have been interesting to know how many
    individuals those prosecutions related to, since obviously some were up on multiple charges, and how
    many were actually found guilty. Not a lot if your cases are anything to go by!

    Rich
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:36:39 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The magistrate went red in the face, puffed himself up, and said, "NO! No! no! Mr Gonzalez, that is
    >quite wrong. It wasn't Carling Black Label... It was Heineken."

    And they say the judiciary are out of touch! Full marks, that magistrate!

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  20. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    Richard Goodman wrote:

    >But, I guess those multiple charges make you a serial offender then ;-).

    I have never been found guilty of a cycling offense.
    --
    remove remove to reply
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...