One for Nuxxman.

Simon Mason

"Nuxx Bar" <derderderder619@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:deb01001-e178-47b9-8e3c-57692dca956c@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <simonma...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
> targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
> they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
> targets?

Are you trying to be funny? Do you think road safety's a laughing
matter? Think of the children.

It's quite simple. I want motorists to be prosecuted/penalised for
things which are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible
(because that is what the law is for). This (no matter how much the
trolls like to pretend otherwise) does not include exceeding a speed
limit in safety, parking on unnecessary double yellow lines, or
driving in unnecessary bus lanes when there are no buses or cyclists
to be seen. It does include driving without a licence/insurance/tax/
MOT, drink- and drug-driving, dangerous/illegal overtaking, lane-
hogging, causing a huge queue and refusing to pull over and let it
past, not indicating, pulling out in front of people, jumping red
lights, driving inappropriately fast, and all sorts of other things
(the vast majority of driving offences in fact). Do you understand
yet, or shall I go over it in even simpler terms?

Equally, since unlike the trolls I don't discriminate between modes of
transport, I want cyclists to be prosecuted/penalised for things which
are genuinely dangerous and/or socially irresponsible (because that is
what the law is for). This does not include cycling on the pavement
when there is obviously no-one around, or jumping red lights on
pedestrian crossings when there are clearly no pedestrians who will be
affected. It does include cycling on the pavement if there are people
around, jumping red lights the way that cyclists (IME) normally do,
deliberately obstructing motor traffic, cycling three or more abreast,
furious cycling, and pretty much anything else which is illegal on a
bicycle.

All I want is for the same degree of discretion and common sense to
apply to motorists and cyclists. The trolls, on the other hand, want
discretion and common sense to be applied to cyclists, but want
motorists to receive huge and disproportionate punishments for
absolutely every technical infraction, no matter if anyone suffers.
Their motivation is quite clearly the persecution of motorists for
driving at all, rather than road safety. Further proof of this is the
fact that the trolls even want motorists to be punished when they're
accused of speeding despite not having actually been speeding; any
motorist who dares to fight a speeding ticket in court, no matter how
unjustified the ticket, is invariably subjected to high levels of
abuse from the trolls. It's not about "safety", it's not about
"justice", it's about punishing motorists for driving full stop. Not
that any of the trolls will ever admit it, because lying about it
seems to be part of the trolls' sick little game.

Now I really hope you've got that, Simon Mason. If you haven't,
there's really no hope for you. But I think you know perfectly well
what I mean, as you did when you started this topic, and trying to win
an argument by pretending not to understand someone's position is
pretty lame TBH. If you want to attempt to explain why cyclists
shouldn't be punished for every little infraction, but motorists
should, then go ahead. But just because you can't, that's no reason
to keep trying to waste my time by pretending to be thick instead.
It's really not as funny or clever as you seem to think.

Paul Boyd

On 05/06/2008 20:46, Nick Kew said,

> "Cyclists will be stopped and ... "

> The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
> motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.

It isn't legal when applied to motorists - police can stop you whenever
they like.

In the newspaper article it appears that the police are treating
law-breaking cyclists in the same way they treat law-breaking motorists,
so I really don't see a problem. It might even go some way to removing
some of the antagonism cyclists get from motorists who believe that
cyclists can get away with breaking the law but motorists can't.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Simon Mason

Sorry for previous unedited post!

Incidentally, I am just setting off on a 3000 mile trip around Europe for
which I have had to thoroughly familiarise myself with local traffic laws.
So I have two hi-vis jackets (inside the car, not illegally in the boot)
spare bulbs, spare prescription glasses, fire extinguisher, first aid kit,
International Driving Permit, two warning triangles, headlamp converters
etc.

Plus, I have to *pay* to use 5 different countries road network by the
vignette system and the sneaky thing is, some countries don't even have
speed limit signs; you are expected to know what it is when you reach the
town sign itself and the police hide behind them with speed guns! Sneaky or
what?

NL-D-A-H-RO-MD-UA-PL-D-NL.

Toodle pip. :-)

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

news@chthonic.f9.co.uk

On Jun 5, 7:36 pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
> Do you think PCSO Mark Lutkin is going to advise the cyclist in the
> picture that he should remove the D lock from his front wheel before
> resuming his journey?
>
I'm more worried by the lack of brakes on the back. I see people
with the back brakes undone like that all the time and still can't
work out why they do it. Apart from laziness, that is.

David Hansen

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:24:16 +0100 someone who may be Paul Boyd
<usenet@abcd.invalid> wrote this:-

>> The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
>> motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.
>
>It isn't legal when applied to motorists - police can stop you whenever
>they like.

The police claim otherwise and occasionally mount campaigns to have
this changed, most usually in the context of "unfettered" breath
testing.

>In the newspaper article it appears that the police are treating
>law-breaking cyclists in the same way they treat law-breaking motorists,
>so I really don't see a problem.

I can't recall any cases where the police have stopped all private
motorists without a reason and carried out tests on their vehicles.
Buses and lorries yes, but not cars. I suspect that if they did so
there would be uproar about yet another imposition on poor oppressed
motorists. If you are aware of any such cases please provide
evidence if you can.

>It might even go some way to removing
>some of the antagonism cyclists get from motorists who believe that
>cyclists can get away with breaking the law but motorists can't.

I doubt it. Motorists get away with breaking the law many millions
of times a day, despite attempts by some to claim that any law
breaking is punished. Those who make those claims are the same sort
of people who claim that the number of police officers dealing with
motoring has been dramatically reduced. They fail to see the
contradiction in their claims.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Sir Jeremy

On 6 Jun, 10:37, "Simon Mason" <simonma...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> I have found in 34 years of driving that obeying the law works. I have had
> just two speeding offences and no parking tickets in all that time and my
> licence has been clean for 12 years, so you might understand why I fail to
> see why others can't do the same and obey the law - it's not so hard to do.
>
> --
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/


I suppose you think you're a safe driver because you don't break the
speed limit.

I've had no convictions or accidents of any sort in 36 years driving
despite taking a relaxed attitude to the speed limit. One of us is
doing something right and it isn't you.

Ian Smith

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, news@chthonic.f9.co.uk <> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:36 pm, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
> > Do you think PCSO Mark Lutkin is going to advise the cyclist in
> > the picture that he should remove the D lock from his front wheel
> > before resuming his journey?
> >
> I'm more worried by the lack of brakes on the back. I see people
> with the back brakes undone like that all the time and still can't
> work out why they do it. Apart from laziness, that is.

Last week (one week ago today, in fact) I was sitting in a restaurant
eating some (rather poor) haddock and chips when a youth cycled up
across the road, and stopped by dragging his feet on the road. This
attracted my attention, so I then looked more closely and noticed that
he had no brakes.

Not disconnected, not faulty, simply none.

No brake levers, no brake cables, no brake mechanism of any sort. The
front hub definitely had no brake in it, and the back hub I'm fairly
certain had no brake - the body looked too small and there was no
visible reaction arm.

I was surprised, and marvelled that he'd got this far through life,
if willing to ride a bike in that state in traffic.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Simon Mason

"Sir Jeremy" <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:5fbce69c-4737-4269-90b6-dd77e5b0bf93@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Jun, 10:37, "Simon Mason" <simonma...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> I have found in 34 years of driving that obeying the law works. I have
>> had
>> just two speeding offences and no parking tickets in all that time and my
>> licence has been clean for 12 years, so you might understand why I fail
>> to
>> see why others can't do the same and obey the law - it's not so hard to
>> do.
>>
>> --
>> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
>
>
> I suppose you think you're a safe driver because you don't break the
> speed limit.
>
> I've had no convictions or accidents of any sort in 36 years driving
> despite taking a relaxed attitude to the speed limit. One of us is
> doing something right and it isn't you.
>


In the eyes of the law I am doing something right and that's what is
important, not your opinion. Your opinion won't put points on my licence.

I wonder what will happen in Ukraine if I take a "relaxed attitude to the
speed limit"? A series of fines I can tell you.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Richard Fairhurst

On Jun 5, 5:53*pm, "Simon Mason" <simonma...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg

Wow.

Not at all the main issue, I know, but I'm amazed by the "in short"
box.

There are people whose reading age is so low - and whose attention
span is so short - that they can't cope with the one-syllable-per-word
style of your average local paper, and need the text to be _further_
simplified?

Maybe the people of Hull deserve an even shorter summary. Something
like "Bad cyclist. No donut."

Richard

budstaff

"Simon Mason" <simonmason@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WMudnWMwb8eqh9XVnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Here's yet another example of the war on the cyclist. Police yet again
> targetting innocent cyclists who are doing nobody any harm at all. Can't
> they catch real criminals, or is it all about making money from soft
> targets?
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg
>
>
> --
> Simon Mason
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
>
>

Interesting that one of the aims is to reduce the number of crimes involving
pedal cycles. Is there a problem of this kind in Hull?

I'm just picturing bank robbers using getaway tandems - presumably wearing
black and white striped lycra and with 'Swag' written on their saddlebags.

Howard

On Jun 6, 12:24*pm, Paul Boyd <use...@abcd.invalid> wrote:
>
> In the newspaper article it appears that the police are treating
> law-breaking cyclists in the same way they treat law-breaking motorists,
> so I really don't see a problem. *

Hardly! For example, the law says that doing even 1 Mph over the legal
maximum is an offence. However, THE POLICE (that is ACPO) have taken
it on themselves to turn a blind eye to motorists breaking the law
unless they go at least 10% plus yet another 2 Mph over the actual
legal limit. This encourages motorists to treat the legal limit as a
target. What’s more the generous margin given to speeding drivers has
nothing to do with issues such as speedometer accuracy as by law and
inaccuracy in a speedo must always give an over-read of the true
speed.

On the other hand the Home Office has issued clear guidance on the use
of Fixed Penalty Notices by the police and CPO’s in relation to
cycling on a footway or in a pedestrian area, yet many forces have
taken it on themselves to ignore this guidance and to operate a `zero
tolerance` policy.

Also the police give ample notice of those areas where speed limits
are likely to be enforced in the form of `Police speed enforcement
area` signs, Speed camera signs, information on websites and in the
local press and so on. Mobile speed enforcement officers usually stand
in a prominent position wearing high-visibility clothing as well. On
the other hand, other then via stories in the press such as that one
above, the enforcement of the law with regards pavement cycling is not
advertised in advance and, as I have seen with my own eyes, the police
often hide in shop doorways and so on dressed in a dark blue uniform
awaiting errant cyclists. Such tactics seem to be applauded in
Britain’s right-wing press and yet they go all over the place if one
in a blue moon the police enforce speed limits in a covert manner!

On top of all this ACPO take pains to emphasise that the enforcement
of traffic laws should pay due regard to the principle of
proportionality. That is the greater danger posed to the public, the
more robustly the laws controlling such behaviour should be
implemented. Given the rarity of fatal and serious injuries caused by
pavement cycling the rule of proportionality should mean that only a
most token effort should me made to enforce the law with regards
pavement cycling, especially one might think in an area where 1 in 5
drivers have no insurance and over 50% of all serious injury and fatal
road crashes are `hit and runs`!

Adam Lea

"Sir Jeremy" <pete.aron@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:5fbce69c-4737-4269-90b6-dd77e5b0bf93@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I've had no convictions or accidents of any sort in 36 years driving
>

but you've seen plenty in your rear view mirror.

Sir Jeremy

On 6 Jun, 19:56, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy" <pete.a...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5fbce69c-4737-4269-90b6-dd77e5b0bf93@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I've had no convictions or accidents of any sort in 36 years driving
>
> but you've seen plenty in your rear view mirror.


I've only ever seen one accident in my side mirror, not my rear view
mirror, a motorcyclist hit a car travelling past me. I heard the bang
and saw a flash of flame and remains of the motorbike fly through the
air. The m'cyclist was brown bread.

Never seen a conviction in any mirror

JNugent

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:24:16 +0100 someone who may be Paul Boyd
> <usenet@abcd.invalid> wrote this:-
>
>>> The first of those sounds like something that, if applied to
>>> motorists, would rapidly be challenged and ruled illegal.
>> It isn't legal when applied to motorists - police can stop you whenever
>> they like.

> The police claim otherwise and occasionally mount campaigns to have
> this changed, most usually in the context of "unfettered" breath
> testing.

It would be extraordinary if the police were to claim that they don't
have the right to stop drivers and question them, because it is a power
they have had (and have exercised) ever since motor vehicles and drivers
were licensed.

It is true that there are some minor legal obstacles specifically to
random breath-testing. A police officer cannot stop a vehicle at random
specifically in order to breath-test the driver or rider. But having
stopped the vehicle for whatever lawful purpose he has in mind (document
check?), he can breath-test the driver if he notices the smell of
alcohol and has reason to believe that the driver has been drinking.

>> In the newspaper article it appears that the police are treating
>> law-breaking cyclists in the same way they treat law-breaking motorists,
>> so I really don't see a problem.

> I can't recall any cases where the police have stopped all private
> motorists without a reason and carried out tests on their vehicles.

Neither can I.

It would certainly be a big job, since there are tens of millions of
motor-vehicles in the UK. But if you mean a road-block in order to check
documents, look for wanted criminals, etc, let me tell you that so far
from never happening, it frequently happens (or has happened).

> Buses and lorries yes, but not cars. I suspect that if they did so
> there would be uproar about yet another imposition on poor oppressed
> motorists. If you are aware of any such cases please provide
> evidence if you can.

The Merseyside Police used to do regular road-blocks (with a check on
every vehicle caught in it) late on Saturday nights back in the 1970s.

They were looking for (in this order):

- wanted criminals
- inebriated drivers
- unlicensed or uninsured private-hire drivers.