Out of the frying pan....

[burtthebike]

.......into the fire.

Our exec member for transport in South Glos for ten years was recently
replaced, and given that she was completely clueless about cycling, didn't
understand her own policies and was considerably less honest than most
politicians, I thought that the replacement had to be better.

I've just come back from the first cycle forum he's attended: the new exec
member drives a minimum of 25,000 miles a year in a 4x4, and from statements
he made about traffic calming, pedestrians and road safety, his
understanding of his own council's policies are less than zero. He did make
lots of comforting statements about consultation and following the council's
cycling policy though.

So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do the deed
myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's pleasure as a
donation to the human race?

--
regards

Richard Burton

[OG]

"burtthebike" > wrote in message
. uk...
> ......into the fire.
>
> Our exec member for transport in South Glos for ten years was recently
> replaced, and given that she was completely clueless about cycling, didn't
> understand her own policies and was considerably less honest than most
> politicians, I thought that the replacement had to be better.
>
> I've just come back from the first cycle forum he's attended: the new exec
> member drives a minimum of 25,000 miles a year in a 4x4, and from
> statements he made about traffic calming, pedestrians and road safety, his
> understanding of his own council's policies are less than zero. He did
> make lots of comforting statements about consultation and following the
> council's cycling policy though.
>
> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do the
> deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's pleasure
> as a donation to the human race?
>

Why not see if you can borrow a bike and persuade him to go on a 5 mile
'fact finding' ride with you, so that he can see how things are on the
ground.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>
> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
> pleasure as a donation to the human race?

Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.

If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
required.

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

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...

>
> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>
> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
> required.
>

If you tell them he was the new exec member of transport and was
planning all sorts of facilities for cyclists as mitigating
circumstances, they will probably let you off scott free and give you an
OBE for services to the public good.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[bugbear]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>
> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>
> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
> required.

Don't forget to neck a couple of pints first.

This (bizarrely) counts as *mitigating* circumstances
for sentencing as far as I can tell.

BugBear

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>
> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>
> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
> required.

Ah, that tired old myth - again.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6997638.stm>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6953740.stm>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2645543.stm>

--
Matt B

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:05:42 +0100, bugbear
> wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>>
>> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>>
>> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
>> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
>> required.
>
>Don't forget to neck a couple of pints first.
>
>This (bizarrely) counts as *mitigating* circumstances
>for sentencing as far as I can tell.

It often may seem that way, but this says consumption of drugs or
alcohol is an aggravating factor:

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:31:05 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>>
>> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>>
>> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
>> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
>> required.
>
>Ah, that tired old myth - again.
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6997638.stm>
- no cyclist involvement, no sentences to refer to, not even any charges
against those arrested. This is evidence for what?

><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6953740.stm>
- no cyclist involvement, no sentences to refer to, no arrests, let
alone anyone accused. This is evidence for what?

><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2645543.stm>
Her car was hit by a brick thrown by the victim. Murder charge dropped.
She got two years incarceration and two years probation for
manslaughter.

She should have tried the Carl Baxter defence: "I drove towards him to
appologise for getting in the way of his brick; besides, I'd never seen
a brick of that colour before and was curious about it."

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:05:42 +0100, bugbear
> > wrote:
>
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>>>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>>>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>>>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>>> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>>>
>>> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
>>> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
>>> required.
>> Don't forget to neck a couple of pints first.
>>
>> This (bizarrely) counts as *mitigating* circumstances
>> for sentencing as far as I can tell.
>
> It often may seem that way, but this says consumption of drugs or
> alcohol is an aggravating factor:
>
> http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675

I wonder if those guidelines are evidence-based. Have you ever noticed
that when the results of Christmas drink-driving campaigns are
published, that there is often a higher percentage of "fails" in the
"random" breath tests, than in the tests taken following a collision.

Wasn't it Dave Allen who pointed-out that if 25% of road accidents were
caused by drunk drivers, that meant that 75% were caused by sober
drivers. ;-)

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:31:05 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>>>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>>>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>>>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>>> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>>>
>>> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
>>> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
>>> required.
>> Ah, that tired old myth - again.
>>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6997638.stm>
> - no cyclist involvement, no sentences to refer to, not even any charges
> against those arrested. This is evidence for what?

That indeed the police may well be /bothered/ to arrest you if they
/believe/ that a car may have deliberately been used aggressively.

>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6953740.stm>
> - no cyclist involvement, no sentences to refer to, no arrests, let
> alone anyone accused. This is evidence for what?

That if the evidence is /believable/ not only will you be pursued, but
the most serious charge available (murder) will be considered.

>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2645543.stm>
> Her car was hit by a brick thrown by the victim. Murder charge dropped.

It was not dropped, she was tried for murder. The judge "did not
believe she had intended to kill him and found her guilty of manslaughter".

> She got two years incarceration and two years probation for
> manslaughter.

You think those found _not_ guilty of murder should be sentenced as
murderers?

--
Matt B

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:48:52 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:31:05 +0100, Matt B
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, burtthebike > wrote:
>>>>> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do
>>>>> the deed myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's
>>>>> pleasure as a donation to the human race?
>>>> Persuade him to come on a cycle ride, then do the deed with a car.
>>>>
>>>> If the police can be bothered to arrest you, you'll get some stern
>>>> tutting from a magistrate, maybe a 50 quid fine. No incarceration
>>>> required.
>>> Ah, that tired old myth - again.
>>>
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6997638.stm>
>> - no cyclist involvement, no sentences to refer to, not even any charges
>> against those arrested. This is evidence for what?
>
>That indeed the police may well be /bothered/ to arrest you if they
>/believe/ that a car may have deliberately been used aggressively.

The car was driven at a police officer. When an officer is an alleged
victim, you can count on books being thrown with vigour, whatever the
merits of the case.

>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6953740.stm>
>> - no cyclist involvement, no sentences to refer to, no arrests, let
>> alone anyone accused. This is evidence for what?
>
>That if the evidence is /believable/ not only will you be pursued, but
>the most serious charge available (murder) will be considered.

Attempted murder, not murder. It's a long road to travel yet, and
plenty of opportunities for the case to die a quiet death. Police
biases, political considerations, lack of money, and many factors
unrelated to the actual case may interfere, and ultimately cause a very
unsatisfactory ending, no matter how valiant the initial cry of "murder
most floul!"

>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2645543.stm>
>> Her car was hit by a brick thrown by the victim. Murder charge dropped.
>
>It was not dropped, she was tried for murder. The judge "did not
>believe she had intended to kill him and found her guilty of manslaughter".

The outcome of this particular trial was entirely reasonable, IMO

>> She got two years incarceration and two years probation for
>> manslaughter.
>
>You think those found _not_ guilty of murder should be sentenced as
>murderers?

Let's not bring O.J. into this...

[Danny Colyer]

On 18/09/2007 20:54, burtthebike wrote:
> ......into the fire.
>
> Our exec member for transport in South Glos for ten years was recently
> replaced, and given that she was completely clueless about cycling, didn't
> understand her own policies and was considerably less honest than most
> politicians, I thought that the replacement had to be better.
>
> I've just come back from the first cycle forum he's attended: the new exec
> member drives a minimum of 25,000 miles a year in a 4x4,

Which he was very up front about (although, to be pedantic, he actually
said that he drives a minimum of 25,000 miles a year and owns a 4x4 - it
doesn't necessarily follow that he drives 25,000 miles a year in a 4x4).
He also stated that he used to be a keen cyclist, it might be
interesting to find out why "used to be".

> and from statements
> he made about traffic calming, pedestrians and road safety, his
> understanding of his own council's policies are less than zero.

As he readily admitted. After you left the meeting he actually made
exactly the same suggestion that you made before he arrived about
producing an executive summary of the policy guidelines. He seemed keen
to learn.

> He did make
> lots of comforting statements about consultation and following the council's
> cycling policy though.

Quite. While you were sitting with a look of consternation upon your
face, he seemed, to me at least, to be making the right noises. It also
seems fair to mention that, for all his political answers and telling us
he couldn't promise anything that hadn't been passed by council, he had
no hesitation in stating that the Gypsy Patch Lane roundabout would be
removed. That's an issue that has dominated these meetings for over a
year, and seems to have been your main bugbear during that time.

> So the question is, do I arrange for a hit man now, or should I do the deed
> myself and accept long term incarceration at her majesty's pleasure as a
> donation to the human race?

I say give him a chance. He seemed genuinely keen to continue to attend
these meetings (time will tell) and he seems interested in our opinions
(obviously it's a politician's job to seem interested in the opinions of
the electorate, but it's something his predecessor never achieved). He
seemed to me to start with a better understanding of our needs than his
predecessor ever had, and to have an interest in improving his
understanding.

I think he's worth trying to cultivate as an ally on the council.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 27 Sep, Danny Colyer > wrote:

> (obviously it's a politician's job to seem interested in the opinions of
> the electorate,

I wish someone would tell my b****y useless waste-of-space sinecured
MP. I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge any of my several
emails and two letters about the Highway Code amendments....

(Incidently, anyone seen the new one in print yet? They did print the
right version, didn't they?)

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

[Colin Nelson]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 27 Sep, Danny Colyer > wrote:
>
> > (obviously it's a politician's job to seem interested in the opinions of
> > the electorate,
>
> I wish someone would tell my b****y useless waste-of-space sinecured
> MP. I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge any of my several
> emails and two letters about the Highway Code amendments....
>
> (Incidently, anyone seen the new one in print yet? They did print the
> right version, didn't they?)
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

Online version here :-
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070202


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 28 Sep, Colin Nelson > wrote:
>
> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > (Incidently, anyone seen the new one in print yet? They did print the
> > right version, didn't they?)
>
> Online version here :-
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070202

I know.

It seems this is what has replaced the www.highwaycode.gov.uk domain,
the imminent demise of which was noted on the group some time ago. At
the moment the older address forwards to the new, which is convenient,
because the new is not exactly snappy and easily remembered.

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

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
> >
> > Online version here :-
> > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070202
>
> I know.
>
> It seems this is what has replaced the www.highwaycode.gov.uk domain,
> the imminent demise of which was noted on the group some time ago. At
> the moment the older address forwards to the new, which is convenient,
> because the new is not exactly snappy and easily remembered.
>


Just realised it has made a major legal mistake. It says:

"Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may
occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and
pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space
(unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side
intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or
footpath."

and then quotes the Highway Act 1835. However the Highway Act 1835 only
applies to footways alongside the highway whereas the above clearly
states cycle tracks are normally located away from the highway. There
is therefore no legal restriction on which side you cycle unless it is
alongside the road. I wonder if I should point it out to them?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Clive George]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Sep, Colin Nelson > wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > (Incidently, anyone seen the new one in print yet? They did print the
>> > right version, didn't they?)
>>
>> Online version here :-
>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070202
>
> I know.
>
> It seems this is what has replaced the www.highwaycode.gov.uk domain,
> the imminent demise of which was noted on the group some time ago. At
> the moment the older address forwards to the new, which is convenient,
> because the new is not exactly snappy and easily remembered.

No, it's important that all government traffic goes through the one portal,
to avoid the confusion that could result from having popular stuff having a
memorable name.

Doesn't anybody learn from the turn of the millenium portal experience?

cheers,
clive