Postie with no lights.



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:42:17 +0000, [email protected] (Marc) wrote:

>I think if you gave the court the body of a pedestrian and a driver who said " I didn't see him,
>because he didn't have any lights" you would get a conviction.

In front of magistrates? Unlikely - at least one I know was incensed when the plod hauled in someone
who was doing "only" 36 in a 30 limit.

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.
 
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:39:16 -0000, "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:

>Perhaps they shouldn't drive when they can't see where they're going.

Last couple of days the local cagers are making a point of pride out of clearing as little snow as
possible from their MDG windscreens.

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.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> >I think if you gave the court the body of a pedestrian and a driver who said " I didn't see him,
> >because he didn't have any lights" you would get a conviction.
>
> In front of magistrates? Unlikely - at least one I know was incensed when the plod hauled in
> someone who was doing "only" 36 in a 30 limit.

To misquote Mrs Beaton "First, pick your magistrate"
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >
>
> My reading of Simon's original post is that she has only been charged but not yet found guilty.
> The police might yet be found to be wrong.

It didn't go to court, she paid a spot fine. Smon
 
"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting
> > at a junction at the give way lines, looked around and then pulled out into the path of a
> > postman on a bike with no lights on.
>
> So come on Simon, it's clear that we really need to know what the ambient lighting conditions were
> like if we're to make any reasonable judgement.

I'll ask him next week. Simon
 
Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > My reading of Simon's original post is that she has only been charged but not yet found guilty.
> > The police might yet be found to be wrong.
>
> It didn't go to court, she paid a spot fine.

So she decided that she was guilty?
 
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > My reading of Simon's original post is that she has only been charged
but
> > > not yet found guilty. The police might yet be found to be wrong.
> >
> > It didn't go to court, she paid a spot fine.
>
> So she decided that she was guilty?

No, the police said that she had little or no chance of winning if she
challenged it in court, so she would be better off accepting the spot fine.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > So she decided that she was guilty?
>
> No, the police said that she had little or no chance of winning if she
> challenged it in court, so she would be better off accepting the spot fine.

ie admitted guilt.
 
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So she decided that she was guilty?
> >
> > No, the police said that she had little or no chance of winning if she
> > challenged it in court, so she would be better off accepting the spot
fine.
>
> ie admitted guilt.

Not necessarily. Sometimes you decide that it would be better if you accept a fine, even if you
believe yourself to be not guilty. If you go to court, you *might* get off with it, but then again
you might not. If you don't then you have to pay out far more than the spot fine. It's then just a
question of whether you dare risk it.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> > >
> > > No, the police said that she had little or no chance of winning if she
> > > challenged it in court, so she would be better off accepting the spot
> fine.
> >
> > ie admitted guilt.
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes you decide that it would be better if you accept a fine, even if you
> believe yourself to be not guilty. If you go to court, you *might* get off with it, but then
> again you might not. If you don't then you have to pay out far more than the spot fine. It's then
> just a question of whether you dare risk it.

By accepting the fixed penalty you accept guilt , it's the same as a caution, you can't walk away
and then say "I wasn't guilty"
 
"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writes:

> I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting
> at a junction at the give way lines, looked around and then pulled out into the path of a postman
> on a bike with no lights on. As he was injured, the incident was reported to the police and the
> upshot was, she was done for due care.
>
> The argument about him having no lights on was a dead duck according to the police. It was *her*
> fault despite this. What's more he is claiming compensation from her insurance for the injury he
> sustained in the accident.

Without commenting on this case in particular - the postmen are bikesq are often menance, they ride
on pavements, ride without lights and generally seem to have very little idea of the contents of the
highway code. Given the the post-office choose to employ bikes to the extent they do for making
deliveries (which is in itself to be encouraged) it's a shame they don't make some effort to
properly train the postman in the use of their bikes.
 
"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> By accepting the fixed penalty you accept guilt , it's the same as a caution, you can't walk away
> and then say "I wasn't guilty"

No it's not the same thing at all. Look into the world of insurance claims for example. Someone
makes a mistake and drives into you. You make a claim on their insurance and they pay out. Now,
usually the insurance company will state that this in no way implies that the party who hit you was
in any way culpable for the accident and by taking the money you forfeit any comeback in the
future. It's your choice to take the cash or chase it through the courts where you might lose.

There are countless other examples. Michael Jackson is accused by a child of abusing him. Jackson
decides it's best to pay the kid a few million dollars, *even if he is not guilty* rather than
have all of his private affairs dragged through the courts. Settling the matter out of court is a
very common event but it in no way implies that that person settling up is guilty. They simply do
not want to go though the hassle of appearing in court where as we all know, gross injustices can
and do occur.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 12:38:17 -0000, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> By accepting the fixed penalty you accept guilt , it's the same as a caution, you can't walk away
>> and then say "I wasn't guilty"

> No it's not the same thing at all.

Actually it *is* the same. You can choose to plead guilty and pay the fixed penalty at the time, or
you can choose to go to court to challenge the charge.

<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_4.htm#mdiv54> has some details - it's
legalese, so rather impenetrable.

>Look into the world of insurance claims for example.

Completely different - that's civil liability, based on balance of probabilities. In a civil case
there is every chance that the postie may fail in his claim, although the conviction for driving
without due care will be taken in evidence.

In a civil case an offer out of court is an important step in the process, as if your award in court
is less than the amount offered you will be liable for any costs incurred by the other side after
their offer was made. For this reason, and because it allows them to apply non-disclosure clauses
preventing deficiencies from coming to light, companies (notably car manufacturers) frequently
settle cases out of court with a generous offer, such that the award by the court would definitely
be less. A lawyer will then advise settlement, this being the best result for their client.

This is not an issue in this case, or in that of any other offence, because the issue at trial is
not the amount of damages but innocence or guilt. There is a small advantage to paying up - there is
a "discount" in criminal cases, for example, for a prompt guilty plea - but not if you consider you
are innocent or that the amount of the fixed penalty is excessive due to extenuating circumstances.

In the case of a fixed penalty offence, the person, by paying, pleads guilty to the offence - the
same principle as applies to fixed penalty parking and speeding offences. They can plead not guilty,
in which case their case will be heard in court, but in this case they chose not to.

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.
 
Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> > By accepting the fixed penalty you accept guilt , it's the same as a caution, you can't walk
> > away and then say "I wasn't guilty"
>
> No it's not the same thing at all.

It is exaclty the smae thing
> Look into the world of insurance claims for example. Someone makes a mistake and drives into you.
> You make a claim on their insurance and they pay out. Now, usually the insurance company will
> state that this in no way implies that the party who hit you was in any way culpable for the
> accident and by taking the money you forfeit any comeback in the future. It's your choice to take
> the cash or chase it through the courts where you might lose.

Irrelevant , nothing to do with breaking the law.
>
> There are countless other examples. Michael Jackson is accused by a child of abusing him. Jackson
> decides it's best to pay the kid a few million dollars, *even if he is not guilty* rather than
> have all of his private affairs dragged through the courts. Settling the matter out of court is a
> very common event but it in no way implies that that person settling up is guilty. They simply do
> not want to go though the hassle of appearing in court where as we all know, gross injustices can
> and do occur.

Civil case, irreleant.

No matter if a case of criminal driving is dealt with through the court or not by accepting a fixed
penalty you have accpeted guilt, why you have accepted it is up to you, but you have.
 
[email protected] (Marc) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > By accepting the fixed penalty you accept guilt , it's the same as a caution, you can't walk
> > > away and then say "I wasn't guilty"
> >
> > No it's not the same thing at all.
>
> It is exaclty the smae thing
> > Look into the world of insurance claims for example. Someone makes a mistake and drives into
> > you. You make a claim on their insurance and they pay out. Now, usually the insurance company
> > will state that this in no way implies that the party who hit you was in any way culpable for
> > the accident and by taking the money you forfeit any comeback in the future. It's your choice to
> > take the cash or chase it through the courts where you might lose.
>
> Irrelevant , nothing to do with breaking the law.
> >
> > There are countless other examples. Michael Jackson is accused by a child of abusing him.
> > Jackson decides it's best to pay the kid a few million dollars, *even if he is not guilty*
> > rather than have all of his private affairs dragged through the courts. Settling the matter out
> > of court is a very common event but it in no way implies that that person settling up is
> > guilty. They simply do not want to go though the hassle of appearing in court where as we all
> > know, gross injustices can and do occur.
>
> Civil case, irreleant.
>
> No matter if a case of criminal driving is dealt with through the court or not by accepting a
> fixed penalty you have accpeted guilt, why you have accepted it is up to you, but you have.

I did tell you I was playing devil's advocate in this thread for my boss, didn't I? See earlier in
thread ;-) Simon
 
your from hull aswell arent u simon? anlaby? i frequently drive down beverley road in the wee small
hours, in the dark, and often pass 2 posties riding togeather. the one nearest the curb never has
lights, the furthest does.

panda

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was talking about bike lights with my boss yesterday and he told me that his wife was waiting at
> a junction at the give way lines, looked around
and
> then pulled out into the path of a postman on a bike with no lights on. As he was injured, the
> incident was reported to the police and the upshot
was,
> she was done for due care.
>
> The argument about him having no lights on was a dead duck according to
the
> police. It was *her* fault despite this. What's more he is claiming compensation from her
> insurance for the injury he sustained in the
accident.
>
> --
> Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
"Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> But in bulit up urban areas at least, I have no doubt that a motorists should be able to see
> cyclists with or without lights if they stick to a reasonable speed. Of course cyclists should use
> lights but I don't think those who don't deserve capital punishment.
>
> ~PB

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

I do a twenty mile round trip commute per day by bike across West London and also drive in London
a fair bit.

When I'm on my bike, never mind the car, even in fairly well lit streets, an unlit fellow cyclist is
difficult to see. Even when they have lights, the lights are often inadequate, particularly those
dim blue flashers that many cyclists seem to have on the front.

Taking Pete's reasoning above to argumentum ad absurdam, I would not be able to drive my car at
night at all because the fact is that I cannot always see unlit cyclists sufficiently quickly to
take them into account, particularly on a rainy night, makes the risk of driving at night much too
high if it is my responsibillity to see them.

To make it the responsibillity of a motorist to see a cyclist without lights is surely another
example of the "nanny state" gone mad. When I'm on my bike, I consider that I have a duty as well as
it being good manners to make sure I'm visible and it's in my own interests to not just be lit, but
to positivly proclaim my presence "in your face."

I would consider reflective leg bands and something like a twenty five watt Lumicyle on the front
and a "flasher" on the back to be the absolute minimum in London, A motorist has lots of things to
think about in a rapidly changing environment and a cyclist is just one of these. It's in my
interests to move myself up his/her list of priorities!

For example, cat runs into road, motorist swerves. If I'm well lit and have already been seen, I
have a better chance that the motorist will swerve away from me.

It's not just in the car that unlit cyclists are a menace. Not so long ago I was riding my bike in
the rain and came to a road junction as the lights were turning to red. I slammed on my (very
effective) Campagnolo brakes and had an unlit cyclist who had no intention of stopping at the lights
go into the back of me. Ok, an extreme case but if I'd known he was there, I would have taken him
into account and stopped more slowly: as it is, I got a load of abuse from him as though it were my
fault! grrrrr

Rikybabe
 
Rik Brooks wrote:
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>> But in bulit up urban areas at least, I have no doubt that a motorists should be able to see
>> cyclists with or without lights if they stick to a reasonable speed. Of course cyclists should
>> use lights but I don't think those who don't deserve capital punishment.

> Sorry, but I have to disagree.
>
> I do a twenty mile round trip commute per day by bike across West London and also drive in London
> a fair bit.
>
> When I'm on my bike, never mind the car, even in fairly well lit streets, an unlit fellow cyclist
> is difficult to see.

I suspect you either have poor night vision or you cycle at 40mph+. I do not have trouble seeing
unlit cyclists in town from both a bike and a car when travelling at reasonable speed in all
weathers. And I'm not a massive fan of carrots.

> Taking Pete's reasoning above to argumentum ad absurdam, I would not be able to drive my car at
> night at all because the fact is that I cannot always see unlit cyclists sufficiently quickly to
> take them into account, particularly on a rainy night, makes the risk of driving at night much too
> high if it is my responsibillity to see them.

If you can't see cyclists on lit streets in time, that's right, you shouldn't drive (or cycle).
If the rain or whatever weather is interfering with your vision, you should slow down or abandon
the drive.

> To make it the responsibillity of a motorist to see a cyclist without lights is surely another
> example of the "nanny state" gone mad. When I'm on my bike, I consider that I have a duty as well
> as it being good manners to make sure I'm visible and it's in my own interests to not just be lit,
> but to positivly proclaim my presence "in your face."

The fact is that most cycle lights aren't brilliant, so there's not a great deal of difference in
practice between most lit cyclists and unlit ones in town. Of course it is advisable for cyclists to
make themselves visable, but we're talking about cyclists as they are now. I do not think motorists
have the right to run them down. Cyclists are on the road - many of them with weak or no lights.
They should be culled. Is that the idea? All road users have to take into account other road users
as they commonly behave. If you want cyclists to be more visable, then encourage them to improve and
perhaps campaign for laws and policing to be changed, etc, but you don't have the right to kill them
in the meantime, and you have a duty not to.

- - - Several people picked up on the (beedin' obvious) flaw in my argument when it comes to unlit
roads. Ok, a driver can't be expected to see an unlit cyclist coming from the right in the pitch
black, for example, BUT that driver will NOT (or at least should not) be blamed if that cyclist
slams into the car just as it's pulling out of the side turning - because of course the unlit
cyclists should have expected the driver not to see him. However, on a _straight_ section of road,
for example - even on an unlit road - I still think the driver should be driving at such a speed
and with good enough headlights and eyesight to be able to see a bike ahead - whether or not the
bike has good lights, average lights or no lights.

~PB
 
Rik Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>To make it the responsibillity of a motorist to see a cyclist without lights is surely another
>example of the "nanny state" gone mad.

I can't see anything wrong with the idea that those who operate one-ton vehicles moving at high
speeds should have a duty of care towards those who operate 30lb vehicles moving at moderate speeds.

Pedestrians may be wise to wear light clothing at night, but no-one disputes that motorists have a
duty to avoid them even if they wear dark clothes and are staggering drunk.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mEf*[email protected]...
> Rik Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >To make it the responsibillity of a motorist to see a cyclist without lights is surely another
> >example of the "nanny state" gone mad.
>
> I can't see anything wrong with the idea that those who operate one-ton vehicles moving at
> high speeds should have a duty of care towards those who operate 30lb vehicles moving at
> moderate speeds.

Quite right, but this thread has been discussing the balance of responsibility when a vehicle
joining a road out of a side road is hit (or hits) an unlit cyclist postie. The issue is whether it
is reasonable to expect the driver to see the (presumably) fast moving cyclist. (The incident has
been related third hand so none of us knows the full facts.)
>
> Pedestrians may be wise to wear light clothing at night, but no-one disputes that motorists have a
> duty to avoid them even if they wear dark clothes and are staggering drunk.

Yes, but there are circumstances under which the behaviour of the pedestrian will be deemed to have
been the major contribution to an incident. I would hazard the guess that a lack of cycle lights
would be such a factor in the case of an incident with a cycle.

> David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

Michael MacClancy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads