Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide



N

Nuxx Bar

Guest
I'll come up with a complete list of anti-motorist measures when I've
got time (because it will take a while).

But for now, I would like people (particularly Spindrift and his ilk)
to say whether they feel that each of the following events is
reasonable and necessary to achieve safer and/or less congested
roads. Each of these events is similar to at least one which has
happened in real life. Those who take exception to this post (despite
no opinions being expressed therein, so I can't imagine why, unless
they're trolling themselves of course) are encouraged to save
everybody some time and not add their less than 2 cents' worth.

1. Location: a stretch of wide, straight urban road with compulsory
cycle lanes.

Motorist A is waiting towards the middle of the road for a long line
of oncoming traffic to clear so that they can turn right. Motorist B
(with a line of cars behind) is coming up behind Motorist A and wishes
to continue past Motorist A, so that neither Motorist B nor the cars
behind are unduly delayed. There is not enough space to do this
without going into the cycle lane. Motorist B checks carefully all
around and ascertains that there are no cyclists anywhere nearby.
Motorist B briefly enters the cycle lane to get round Motorist A and
gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from his car
further down the road.

2. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road with a pelican crossing.

A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
nearby. A Cyclist cycles up to the crossing, observes that no
pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and cycles
through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
Cyclist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
his car further down the road.

3. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road with a pelican crossing.

A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
nearby. A Motorist drives up to the crossing, observes that no
pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and drives
through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
Motorist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
his car further down the road.

4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including
HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby.

A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy
traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no
pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing
so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the
road.

5. Location: a stretch of urban road.

A Motorist parks with the car's bumper overhanging the beginning of a
double yellow line by 10cm. The car is not obstructing or
inconveniencing anybody. The Motorist returns to find a PCN attached
to the car.

6. Location: a stretch of rural NSL road with double white lines.

A Cyclist is cycling down the road at 15mph. A Motorist comes up
behind the Cyclist having been safely proceeding at the 60mph speed
limit, and slows down to 15mph. The Motorist could overtake the
Cyclist without crossing the double white lines, but to do so would
mean going closer to the Cyclist than would be ideal (since the
Cyclist is wobbling somewhat). After checking that there is no
oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance, the Motorist briskly
overtakes the Cyclist, briefly going around 0.5m over the double white
lines to ensure that there is ample space. The Motorist is fined by a
policeman who was observing from an unmarked car behind.

7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.

A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.

8. Location: a stretch of rural road through a village with a 30mph
limit (recently reduced from 40mph). Going out of the village, all
buildings, pavements and other hazards stop 200m before the speed
limit changes from 30mph to NSL.

A Motorist drives through the village at 30mph, then begins to
accelerate gently once the last hazard is 100m behind. The Motorist
is doing 35mph as they are nearly at the NSL sign. The Motorist
receives a NIP in the post a week later as a result of a hidden
"Safety" Camera Partnership van lasering them at 35mph in the 30mph
zone.
 
Nuxx Bar wrote:

8<... usual shite

Shouldn't you be licking a window somewhere?

Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... all about me at www.nervouscyclist.org
'Now some people say that you shouldn't tempt fate, and for them I
cannot disagree - but I never learned nothing by playing it safe - I
say fate should not tempt me.' - Mary Chapin Carpenter
 
"Tim Dunne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> 8<... usual shite
>
> Shouldn't you be licking a window somewhere?
>
> Tim


Sorry Tim, but I'm going to have to report you to the Association of British
Glaziers. Cruel and unusual punishment, it not actually torture. Why
should windows have to suffer like that?
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:30:52 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>I'll come up with a complete list of anti-motorist measures when I've
>got time (because it will take a while).


IOW, you still want to take up our time but can't be arsed to put in
any of your own.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
In article <6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Nuxx Bar
[email protected] says...

> 1. Location: a stretch of wide, straight urban road with compulsory
> cycle lanes.
>
> Motorist A is waiting towards the middle of the road for a long line
> of oncoming traffic to clear so that they can turn right. Motorist B
> (with a line of cars behind) is coming up behind Motorist A and wishes
> to continue past Motorist A, so that neither Motorist B nor the cars
> behind are unduly delayed. There is not enough space to do this
> without going into the cycle lane. Motorist B checks carefully all
> around and ascertains that there are no cyclists anywhere nearby.
> Motorist B briefly enters the cycle lane to get round Motorist A and
> gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from his car
> further down the road.


Perfectly reasonable: a mandatory cycle lane is no more a place to drive
than a pavement is.
>
> 2. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road with a pelican crossing.
>
> A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
> manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
> corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
> nearby. A Cyclist cycles up to the crossing, observes that no
> pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and cycles
> through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
> Cyclist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
> his car further down the road.


Quite right - anyone who ignores a red light should expect to be
prosecuted.
>
> 3. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road with a pelican crossing.
>
> A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
> manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
> corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
> nearby. A Motorist drives up to the crossing, observes that no
> pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and drives
> through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
> Motorist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
> his car further down the road.


Quite right - anyone who ignores a red light should expect to be
prosecuted.
>
> 4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including
> HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby.
>
> A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy
> traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no
> pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing
> so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the
> road.


Pavements aren't for cycling - if he was that bothered he could have
pushed the bike.
>
> 5. Location: a stretch of urban road.
>
> A Motorist parks with the car's bumper overhanging the beginning of a
> double yellow line by 10cm. The car is not obstructing or
> inconveniencing anybody. The Motorist returns to find a PCN attached
> to the car.


If there wasn't space to park legally they should have found somewhere
else.
>
> 6. Location: a stretch of rural NSL road with double white lines.
>
> A Cyclist is cycling down the road at 15mph. A Motorist comes up
> behind the Cyclist having been safely proceeding at the 60mph speed
> limit, and slows down to 15mph. The Motorist could overtake the
> Cyclist without crossing the double white lines, but to do so would
> mean going closer to the Cyclist than would be ideal (since the
> Cyclist is wobbling somewhat). After checking that there is no
> oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance, the Motorist briskly
> overtakes the Cyclist, briefly going around 0.5m over the double white
> lines to ensure that there is ample space. The Motorist is fined by a
> policeman who was observing from an unmarked car behind.
>

Double white lines are used where it is unsafe to overtake. Whether the
cyclist is wobbling or not the driver should leave at least a full car
width when overtaking - if there isn't room to do that then it's not
safe to overtake.

> 7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.
>
> A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
> as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
> traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
> later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.


Double yellows mean no waiting at any time - how hard is that?
>
> 8. Location: a stretch of rural road through a village with a 30mph
> limit (recently reduced from 40mph). Going out of the village, all
> buildings, pavements and other hazards stop 200m before the speed
> limit changes from 30mph to NSL.
>
> A Motorist drives through the village at 30mph, then begins to
> accelerate gently once the last hazard is 100m behind. The Motorist
> is doing 35mph as they are nearly at the NSL sign. The Motorist
> receives a NIP in the post a week later as a result of a hidden
> "Safety" Camera Partnership van lasering them at 35mph in the 30mph
> zone.
>

Speed limits don't mean "go no faster unless you think it's OK to do
so". Even if his average speed in that last 100m was 35mph he only
shortened his journey by about 2.5 seconds - was it really worth it?
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:49:12 -0000, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>> 1. Location: a stretch of wide, straight urban road with compulsory
>> cycle lanes.


>> Motorist A is waiting towards the middle of the road for a long line
>> of oncoming traffic to clear so that they can turn right. Motorist B
>> (with a line of cars behind) is coming up behind Motorist A and wishes
>> to continue past Motorist A, so that neither Motorist B nor the cars
>> behind are unduly delayed. There is not enough space to do this
>> without going into the cycle lane. Motorist B checks carefully all
>> around and ascertains that there are no cyclists anywhere nearby.
>> Motorist B briefly enters the cycle lane to get round Motorist A and
>> gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from his car
>> further down the road.


>Perfectly reasonable: a mandatory cycle lane is no more a place to drive
>than a pavement is.


Indeed. Why is patience never an option for these people? Seems
they would rather waste their lives bleating about being caught than
comply with the law. String 'em up, it's the only language they
understand.

>> A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
>> manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
>> corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
>> nearby. A Motorist drives up to the crossing, observes that no
>> pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and drives
>> through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
>> Motorist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
>> his car further down the road.


>Quite right - anyone who ignores a red light should expect to be
>prosecuted.


How dare you suggest that a motorist would cross a red light. Shame
on you! Everybody knows that breaking the law in this way is the
exclusive preserve of cyclists.

>> A Cyclist is cycling down the road at 15mph. A Motorist comes up
>> behind the Cyclist having been safely proceeding at the 60mph speed
>> limit, and slows down to 15mph. The Motorist could overtake the
>> Cyclist without crossing the double white lines, but to do so would
>> mean going closer to the Cyclist than would be ideal (since the
>> Cyclist is wobbling somewhat). After checking that there is no
>> oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance, the Motorist briskly
>> overtakes the Cyclist, briefly going around 0.5m over the double white
>> lines to ensure that there is ample space. The Motorist is fined by a
>> policeman who was observing from an unmarked car behind.


>Double white lines are used where it is unsafe to overtake. Whether the
>cyclist is wobbling or not the driver should leave at least a full car
>width when overtaking - if there isn't room to do that then it's not
>safe to overtake.


Indeed. The relevant rule in the HC suggests 10mph as the benchmark
for a vehicle going slowly enough for overtaking across the line to
be permissible.

Personally, I find the worst problem on these roads to be the very
large tractors that can easily maintain almost 30mph. But if you
drive on country roads, you learn to live with it.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
In article <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know?
[email protected] says...

> Personally, I find the worst problem on these roads to be the very
> large tractors that can easily maintain almost 30mph. But if you
> drive on country roads, you learn to live with it.
>

But it's really very dangerous, and often not physically possible, to
drive under 30mph - ask any safespeeder. :)
 
Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'll come up with a complete list of anti-motorist measures when I've
> got time (because it will take a while).


Ah, you can't be bothered to do what you promised to do several days ago
but want us to read your tedious drivel.

Ta ra,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
>you know?
>
>> Personally, I find the worst problem on these roads to be the very
>> large tractors that can easily maintain almost 30mph. But if you
>> drive on country roads, you learn to live with it.
>>

>But it's really very dangerous, and often not physically possible, to
>drive under 30mph - ask any safespeeder. :)


Ah, but that's the danger of having to constantly watch the speedometer
in a 30mph limit, sticking (at least roughly) to a limit while still
being aware of what is around you apparently not being part of their
driving test the way it was for everyone else.

Clearly, the answer is more tractors on urban roads to keep the
safespeeders below 30mph without having to look at their speedometer.
 
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:49:12 -0000, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> 4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including
>> HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby.
>>
>> A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy
>> traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no
>> pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing
>> so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the
>> road.

>
>Pavements aren't for cycling - if he was that bothered he could have
>pushed the bike.


The fine would almost certainly be overturned on appeal or by judicial
review. Home office advice clearly states that the FPN is not
intended for responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use
the footway out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other
pavement users.
 
Nuxx Bar wrote:

> But for now, I would like people (particularly Spindrift and his ilk)
> to say whether they feel that each of the following events is
> reasonable and necessary to achieve safer and/or less congested
> roads.


<snip>

These aren't "anti motorist measures", they are places where a set
of circumstances has arisen that inconveniences a motorist in some
perticular contexts. So in the same vein you /could/ say anyone
wanting to cross the road is potentially "an anti motorist measure".

A true "anti motorist measure" would be discrimination against a
motorist for no other reason than discrimination, and none of yours
fit the bill.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Returning to the topic, I would say that no, Nuxxy's thread is
neither reasonable nor necessary.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I'll come up with a complete list of anti-motorist measures when I've
> got time (because it will take a while).
>
> But for now, I would like people (particularly Spindrift and his ilk)
> to say whether they feel that each of the following events is
> reasonable and necessary to achieve safer and/or less congested
> roads. Each of these events is similar to at least one which has
> happened in real life. Those who take exception to this post (despite
> no opinions being expressed therein, so I can't imagine why, unless
> they're trolling themselves of course) are encouraged to save
> everybody some time and not add their less than 2 cents' worth.
>


My thoughts are valued in British pence and thus far too valuable to share
with you on this occasion.
 
Nuxx Bar wrote:

> I'll come up with a complete list of anti-motorist measures when I've
> got time (because it will take a while).
>
> But for now, I would like people (particularly Spindrift and his ilk)
> to say whether they feel that each of the following events is
> reasonable and necessary to achieve safer and/or less congested
> roads. Each of these events is similar to at least one which has
> happened in real life. Those who take exception to this post (despite
> no opinions being expressed therein, so I can't imagine why, unless
> they're trolling themselves of course) are encouraged to save
> everybody some time and not add their less than 2 cents' worth.
>
> 1. Location: a stretch of wide, straight urban road with compulsory
> cycle lanes.
>
> Motorist A is waiting towards the middle of the road for a long line
> of oncoming traffic to clear so that they can turn right. Motorist B
> (with a line of cars behind) is coming up behind Motorist A and wishes
> to continue past Motorist A, so that neither Motorist B nor the cars
> behind are unduly delayed. There is not enough space to do this
> without going into the cycle lane. Motorist B checks carefully all
> around and ascertains that there are no cyclists anywhere nearby.
> Motorist B briefly enters the cycle lane to get round Motorist A and
> gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from his car
> further down the road.


Broke the law, got busted, tough. He didn't have to break the law, he could
have waited all of one second - which he undoubtedly would have had to wait
anyway at the next traffic light down the road.

Time saved: nil. Points on license: three.

> 2. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road with a pelican crossing.
>
> A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
> manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
> corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
> nearby. A Cyclist cycles up to the crossing, observes that no
> pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and cycles
> through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
> Cyclist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
> his car further down the road.


Broke the law, got busted, tough.

Time saved: not very much; fine, probably £60.

> 3. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road with a pelican crossing.
>
> A Pedestrian presses the button on the pelican crossing, but then
> manages to complete the crossing and continue their journey before the
> corresponding traffic light turns red. No other pedestrians are
> nearby. A Motorist drives up to the crossing, observes that no
> pedestrians are going to cross after carefully checking, and drives
> through the crossing while the traffic light is still red. The
> Motorist gets fined for doing so by a policeman who was observing from
> his car further down the road.


Broke the law, got busted, tough.

Time saved: not very much; fine, probably £60; points on license: three.

> 4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including
> HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby.
>
> A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy
> traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no
> pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing
> so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the
> road.


Broke the law, got busted, tough. The place to cycle is on the road. Cycling
on the pavement is substantially more, not less, dangerous.

Time saved: nil; fine, probably £60.

> 5. Location: a stretch of urban road.
>
> A Motorist parks with the car's bumper overhanging the beginning of a
> double yellow line by 10cm. The car is not obstructing or
> inconveniencing anybody. The Motorist returns to find a PCN attached
> to the car.


Broke the law, got busted, tough. If you can't park don't drive.

Time saved: nil; fine, probably £40.

> 6. Location: a stretch of rural NSL road with double white lines.
>
> A Cyclist is cycling down the road at 15mph. A Motorist comes up
> behind the Cyclist having been safely proceeding at the 60mph speed
> limit, and slows down to 15mph. The Motorist could overtake the
> Cyclist without crossing the double white lines, but to do so would
> mean going closer to the Cyclist than would be ideal (since the
> Cyclist is wobbling somewhat). After checking that there is no
> oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance, the Motorist briskly
> overtakes the Cyclist, briefly going around 0.5m over the double white
> lines to ensure that there is ample space. The Motorist is fined by a
> policeman who was observing from an unmarked car behind.


Lucky to get away with his licence, should have had it taken off him
permanently. Deliberately endangered the life of both the cyclist and
oncoming traffic. Personally, I'd shoot the *******.

Time saved: nil. Points on licence, probably only three, which isn't nearly
enough.

> 7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.
>
> A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
> as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
> traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
> later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.


Broke the law, got busted, tough.

Time saved: probably quite a lot on this occasion; points on licence: nil;
fine: probably £40.

> 8. Location: a stretch of rural road through a village with a 30mph
> limit (recently reduced from 40mph). Going out of the village, all
> buildings, pavements and other hazards stop 200m before the speed
> limit changes from 30mph to NSL.
>
> A Motorist drives through the village at 30mph, then begins to
> accelerate gently once the last hazard is 100m behind. The Motorist
> is doing 35mph as they are nearly at the NSL sign. The Motorist
> receives a NIP in the post a week later as a result of a hidden
> "Safety" Camera Partnership van lasering them at 35mph in the 30mph
> zone.


Broke the law, got busted, tough. Points on licence, three; fine, probably
£60.

And at the end of that little lot, your driver has for needlessly,
pointlessly and at no saving of time to himself breaking perfectly well
known laws four times. totted up twelve points on his licence and is
deservedly banned from driving.

The law is the law. If you want to live in a civilised society where people
don't beat you up in the street, burgle your house, sell your children into
slavery and so on, you obey the law. And if you don't obey the law, you get
punished. That's the deal. It isn't difficult to obey the driving laws -
it's extremely easy. If you can't do it, you shouldn't drive. End of story.

No sympathy at all.

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

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:49:12 -0000, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including
>>> HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby.
>>>
>>> A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy
>>> traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no
>>> pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing
>>> so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the
>>> road.

>>
>>Pavements aren't for cycling - if he was that bothered he could have
>>pushed the bike.

>
> The fine would almost certainly be overturned on appeal or by judicial
> review. Home office advice clearly states that the FPN is not
> intended for responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use
> the footway out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other
> pavement users.


I am of the opinion that they should be, though. If you go on the pavement
you ought to get off your bike and walk.

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

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall
 
On Feb 23, 10:28 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:


>
> > 7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.

>
> > A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
> > as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
> > traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
> > later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.

>
> Broke the law, got busted, tough.
>
> Time saved: probably quite a lot on this occasion; points on licence: nil;
> fine: probably £40.


Wrong. He was not parked, merely stopped. No offence (or to be
technical, contravention) occurred so he should challenge the ticket
in court. This presumes he did not get out of the car.

..d
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
[email protected]e says...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:49:12 -0000, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> 4. A stretch of fairly narrow urban road with heavy traffic including
> >> HGVs, and pavements alongside with no pedestrians nearby.
> >>
> >> A Cyclist is finding it uncomfortable sharing the road with the heavy
> >> traffic, and after checking carefully to ensure that there are no
> >> pedestrians nearby, cycles on the pavement. They are fined for doing
> >> so by a policeman who was observing from his car further down the
> >> road.

> >
> >Pavements aren't for cycling - if he was that bothered he could have
> >pushed the bike.

>
> The fine would almost certainly be overturned on appeal or by judicial
> review. Home office advice clearly states that the FPN is not
> intended for responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use
> the footway out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other
> pavement users.
>

Shh, don't confuse the issue - Nuxx is still struggling with the simple
stuff.
 
In article <5d998b23-8882-4c36-8ee1-
[email protected]>, David Martin
[email protected] says...
> On Feb 23, 10:28 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Nuxx Bar wrote:

>
> >
> > > 7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.

> >
> > > A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
> > > as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
> > > traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
> > > later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.

> >
> > Broke the law, got busted, tough.
> >
> > Time saved: probably quite a lot on this occasion; points on licence: nil;
> > fine: probably £40.

>
> Wrong. He was not parked, merely stopped. No offence (or to be
> technical, contravention) occurred so he should challenge the ticket
> in court. This presumes he did not get out of the car.
>

You really need to brush up on the Highway Code - double yellows is "no
waiting at any time".
 
David Martin wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:28 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:

>
>>> 7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.
>>> A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
>>> as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
>>> traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
>>> later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.

>> Broke the law, got busted, tough.
>>
>> Time saved: probably quite a lot on this occasion; points on licence: nil;
>> fine: probably £40.

>
> Wrong. He was not parked, merely stopped. No offence (or to be
> technical, contravention) occurred so he should challenge the ticket
> in court. This presumes he did not get out of the car.


Double yellows are not DO NOT PARK, they are DO NOT WAIT OR PARK, see HC238



--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Give your child mental blocks for Christmas.
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5d998b23-8882-4c36-8ee1-bdd475621d0f@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 23, 10:28 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:


>
> > 7. Location: a quiet stretch of urban road in London.

>
> > A Motorist stops for a minute on double yellow lines to read a map, so
> > as not to obstruct anyone's potential path or sight lines. No other
> > traffic is nearby throughout the time that they are stopped. A week
> > later they receive a CCTV PCN through the post.

>
> Broke the law, got busted, tough.
>
> Time saved: probably quite a lot on this occasion; points on licence: nil;
> fine: probably £40.


Wrong. He was not parked, merely stopped. No offence (or to be
technical, contravention) occurred so he should challenge the ticket
in court. This presumes he did not get out of the car.

...d

A double yellow line means no waiting, although whether stopping to check a
map counts as waiting I don't know. The HC says you can stop to load or
unload or while passengers board or alight.

Adam