A12 death :( There is something you can do

[Peter Fox]

You may have heard of a cyclist killed on the A12 yesterday.
It wasn't me.

But I'm starting my A12 rush-hour rides this week from that very spot.

The accident appears to be exactly as I have claimed was going to kill
and which the Highways agency refuse to admit is a dangerous design.

Even more reason for going ahead with the protest.

I have asked the Road safety minister to chase up the HA and perhaps
some of you good people might like to add your email.

The minister for road safety is David Jamieson and you should be able to
get a message to him at
marked for the minister's attention

Here is what it's all about:
<http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk/roadsafety.htm>
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the porcelain business went down the pan
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

Note -

Peter Fox has been told, according to the local media reports, not to cycle
along the A12, during the rush hour, by police. If this is true, can anyone
tell me what right the police have to stop a single cyclist from cycling along
a public highway??? On the surface of it, it sounds like pure anti-cyclist
prejudice and possibly an illegal act. Has the CTC been informed of this?

I don't know the full details, but from what is being put across in the local
media, I am appalled by the police action.

helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Adrian Boliston]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" > wrote in message
...

> Peter Fox has been told, according to the local media reports, not to
cycle
> along the A12, during the rush hour, by police.

You would have thought that with lower vehicle speeds during rush hour it
would actually be safer in some ways.

[Peter Fox]

Tuesday's ride goes ahead and we will see.

The police have a number of opportunities to put foot (big) in mouth and
make themselves look foolish. I have warned the chief const. by fax
that anybody suggesting cycling safely and reasonably along a dual
carriage way is causing an obstruction will be the immediate subject of
a formal complaint.

I also made the point that a bit of delay is nothing when compared to
lives. Apparently their latest statement witters on about all the
manpower they are putting into investigating the death of the TT - Shame
they haven't done anything about _prevention_. (NB Essex police don't
have any cycling officer.)

The HA are still in denial. Just shows what a pathetic bunch of civil
servants they are - When people are incapable of taking responsibility
for their actions they shouldn't be trusted with responsibility.

Ta for all the support, including offers to ride. Let's take it one
step at a time - Today the real work needs to be done by harassing your
MP to harass David Jamieson MP (Road safety minister). (Numbers in
phone book.)


--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business collapsed
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

[Arthur Clune]

Peter Fox > wrote:

: I also made the point that a bit of delay is nothing when compared to
: lives. Apparently their latest statement witters on about all the
: manpower they are putting into investigating the death of the TT - Shame
: they haven't done anything about _prevention_. (NB Essex police don't
: have any cycling officer.)


It's a fair point tho, and maybe worth making, that it's ok to
*ride* along the A14 while still being stupidly dangerous to
*race* along it. There's a world of difference.

Arthur

[David Hansen]

On 14 Jul 2003 21:09:13 GMT someone who may be
(wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX) wrote this:-

>If this is true, can anyone
>tell me what right the police have to stop a single cyclist from cycling along
>a public highway???

His crime is a serious one, being a cyclist. The police generally go
out of their way to pick on cyclists.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[stephen pridgeon]

Peter Fox > wrote in message >...
> Tuesday's ride goes ahead and we will see.
>
<big snip>

Peter,
Have you posted your actions on the CTT board and the veloriders
board? A lot of regulars on the boards come from that part of the
woods.

www.veloriders.co.uk
www.ctt.org.uk

SteveP

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 14:19:56 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

>His crime is a serious one, being a cyclist. The police generally go
>out of their way to pick on cyclists.

Your Plod May Vary. My local beat constable travels almost
exclusively by bike (as Alex "Mr Rat" will bear witness) and the
busies in Henley have been tremendously supportive when Captain
Clueless has done his worst to spoil my day.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
Advance notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP.
Obviously there will be a week of downtime between the engineer
removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same
equipment on the same line in the same exchange and billing it to
the new ISP.

[Peter Fox]

Arrested and charged with causing a wilful obstruction without lawful
authority or excuse!

Cycling on a dual carriage way is a crime!

The police are going to get some stick for the way they have handled
this in more ways than one.

The implication for all are well appreciated and some well known names
will be on-side when this matter comes to a proper court hearing.



In the meantime the Highways agency continue spouting rubbish From the
acting chief executive: "...I can assure you the provision for cyclists
for each scheme is assessed on its merits" So what? I didn't say it
wasn't.

Obviously he isn't concerned how the HA could ever propose something as
dangerous as a high-speed merge in the first place.




--
PETER FOX Not the same since the cardboard box company folded
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

[Nick Kew]

In article >, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of Peter Fox > wrote:

> Arrested and charged with causing a wilful obstruction without lawful
> authority or excuse!

Thou shalt not ... erm ... challenge authority! Nice to hear you're
getting some publicity, but have you got any of the meeja on-side,
or will you end up as the loony/villain yourself?

> Obviously he isn't concerned how the HA could ever propose something as
> dangerous as a high-speed merge in the first place.

I just looked at it on your webpage. There are a couple of superficially-
similar merges on my regular journey into Plymouth, that I don't consider
particularly dangerous. OTTOMH I can think of one on the way in and
two on the way home, all within 40mph limits.

The one on the way in is downhill, which means the speed difference
between cyclists and cars is small. Both the ones on the way home are
uphill, but benefit.from a stretch where bikes can merge but cars can't,
which I can occupy until there's a gap in traffic from the left.

All of them doubtless also benefit from the lighter and less stressed
traffic of the southwest, compared to London core commuterland.

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars?
Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5, Germany 0.8
(The Economist, July 2002)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:16:01 +0100, Peter Fox
> wrote:

>Arrested and charged with causing a wilful obstruction without lawful
>authority or excuse

I hope you throw the book at them - the book being Cyclecraft,
obviously ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

[Arthur Clune]

Frank X > wrote:

: Also a number of police officers from Erith are on trial at the moment for

This is a little harsh. There's bad eggs in all walks of life. THe police
I've had to deal with have all been very professional and good.

Arthur

[Frank X]

"Arthur Clune" > wrote in message
...
> Frank X > wrote:
>
> : Also a number of police officers from Erith are on trial at the moment
for
>
> This is a little harsh. There's bad eggs in all walks of life. THe police
> I've had to deal with have all been very professional and good.
>

No I don't believe it is harsh. I have very little to do with the police but
I have seen them commit crimes on a number of occasions. Police men must see
criminal behaviour by their colleagues regularly, if they say nothing they
are corrupt themselves because it is their job to stop crime if they do
report the offence they are blackballed by colleagues and eventually hounded
out of the force. I don't see how decent people can survive within the
police.

The police go to great lengths to prevent any independent investigation of
their activities, coverage of offences like the above is minimal and there
is always some one ready with the a few bad apples in every profession
argument. The fact that the police are reasonable most of the time and
reasonable to certain groups of people doesn't excuse the times when they
are not.

Maybe it is different in rural police forces, which do integrate with the
community, but in London everything I see personally and in the news
convinces that police corruption is endemic.

Note I don't consider what they have done to Peter corrupt or criminal just
inappropriate.

[Arthur Clune]

Frank X > wrote:
: Maybe it is different in rural police forces, which do integrate with the
: community, but in London everything I see personally and in the news
: convinces that police corruption is endemic.

Ah, that's your problem right there. You live in London.

Pretty much everyone I've ever met who lives in London assumes that
the rest of the country is the same. It's not.

Arthur

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:16:01 +0100, Peter Fox
> wrote:
>
>>Arrested and charged with causing a wilful obstruction without lawful
>>authority or excuse
>
>I hope you throw the book at them - the book being Cyclecraft,
>obviously ;-)

On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with causing an
obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace along the A12. This has
me *livid*. It's an A-class road, not a bloody motorway designation. If this
case goes through, how long before plod starts stopping cyclists from cycling
on other A-class roads during rush hour? This case *must* be thrown out. I hope
the CTC are putting their legal weight behind Peter Fox on this one. This is a
dangerous threat to cyclists' rights.

helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Colin Blackburn]

In article >,
says...
> >On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:16:01 +0100, Peter Fox
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Arrested and charged with causing a wilful obstruction without lawful
> >>authority or excuse
> >
> >I hope you throw the book at them - the book being Cyclecraft,
> >obviously ;-)
>
> On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with causing an
> obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace along the A12.

Minimally, at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/2940215.stm

Colin

[Dave Larrington]

Helen S wrote:

> On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with
> causing an obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace
> along the A12. This has me *livid*. It's an A-class road, not a
> bloody motorway designation.

True, though A roads with cycling forbidden are not unknown. There are bits
of the North Circular round my way labelled thus, for example. Whether
anyone would actually /want/ to cycle on them is debatable...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>True, though A roads with cycling forbidden are not unknown. There are bits
>of the North Circular round my way labelled thus, for example. Whether
>anyone would actually /want/ to cycle on them is debatable...

Quite. But my understanding is that - so far - cycling on the A12 where Peter
Fox is cycling is not forbidden - yet.

Just looking at the Essex Police web site, I see the Chief Constable lists
cycling as one of his outside interests and they've got a plod on a bike. Pity
the chief plod's actions seem to be anti-cyclist. Perhaps he's an off-road man
:-(

I really do see this case as a potentially serious threat to cycling generally.


Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Thus spake "Dave Larrington" >


> Helen S wrote:

> > On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with
> > causing an obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace
> > along the A12. This has me *livid*. It's an A-class road, not a
> > bloody motorway designation.

> True, though A roads with cycling forbidden are not unknown. There are bits
> of the North Circular round my way labelled thus, for example. Whether
> anyone would actually /want/ to cycle on them is debatable...

I have cycled along them (forbidden!) in the small hours of a weekend
morning. They were fine!

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[NC]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" > wrote in message
...
> >On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:16:01 +0100, Peter Fox
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Arrested and charged with causing a wilful obstruction without lawful
> >>authority or excuse
> >
> >I hope you throw the book at them - the book being Cyclecraft,
> >obviously ;-)
>
> On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with causing
an
> obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace along the A12. This
has
> me *livid*. It's an A-class road, not a bloody motorway designation. If
this
> case goes through, how long before plod starts stopping cyclists from
cycling
> on other A-class roads during rush hour? This case *must* be thrown out. I
hope
> the CTC are putting their legal weight behind Peter Fox on this one. This
is a
> dangerous threat to cyclists' rights.

One could read the case as (a) stupidity by the authorities, (b)
maliciousness by the authorities or (c) very clever by the authorities.

We've had various people suggest (a) or (b). Lets consider (c). I'm
deliberately vague with my term "authorities", and this is pure speculation
on my part:

Peter is causing hassle by his protest, and arguably an indirectly road
safety issue (1) whilst deliberately engaging in a protest, not a normal
travelling route (he went to the press to highlight his protest). So,
authorities initally warn him about an obstruction charge, then on next
occaision arrest him on an obstruction charge. Note the bail condition; must
not cycle in a way which repeats the offence. Case set for September.
Result, Peter's campaign is stopped as breaching bail conditions is a
serious offence in its own right. Come the case in September, there are
several possible outcomes (not guilty, prosecution offers no evidence,
guilty (and I guess an appeal)), but the campaign is no longer in the
sunshine of the summer, its the cool of the winter. Between now and
September, Peter and his allies have to spend time putting together a
defence to the charge (which might be dropped...), diverting effort from
campaigning on the issue of road safety. Result, hassle of protest is
removed. This is very very clever.


Of course, (a) or (b) could equally well apply, and as I said, (c) is pure
speculation on my part. And there might be a (d) or (e) that others can
think up.


(1) The safety issue; a slow moving vehicle on a normally fast moving dual
carriageway at a busy time causes a queue to build up behind it. This queue
can easily be a mile or more in length, and on occaisions the back of the
queue is not on the clearest bit of road. Other vehicles come along the road
at normal high speeds and suddenly meet the rear of the queue. Result, panic
braking and occaisionally a crash when the braking was inappropriate. The
slow moving vehicle is doing nothing wrong, nothing illegal, just going
slowly. The direct cause of the crash is inappropriate speed of vehicles
involved and travelling too close to vehicle in front, but the indirect
innocent cause was the slow moving vehicle. This isn't a dig at Peter, I
see it happening regularly every autumn on the A12 and A14 in Suffolk; the
slow moving vehicles being tractors towing trailers laden with sugar beet.


NC.

[Adrian Boliston]

"Gonzalez" > wrote in message
...

> I wrote to the Highways Agency when the A102(M) was downgraded to the
> A102 why cycles were still banned. They wrote back that at the time
> of construction the road wasn't designed for bicycles.

This is a strange way of putting it. I didn't realise that *any* roads
were specifically "designed for bicycles" !

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>This is a strange way of putting it. I didn't realise that *any* roads
>were specifically "designed for bicycles" !
>

Certainly not any modern ones ;-)

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[Frank X]

"Adrian Boliston" > wrote in message
...
> "Gonzalez" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I wrote to the Highways Agency when the A102(M) was downgraded to the
> > A102 why cycles were still banned. They wrote back that at the time
> > of construction the road wasn't designed for bicycles.
>
> This is a strange way of putting it. I didn't realise that *any* roads
> were specifically "designed for bicycles" !

The A102 is a motorway in all but name. It would be nice to be able to ride
through the Blackwall tunnel (on the pavement) but apart from that you'd
have to be mad to want to go near it on a bike.

I think it is a good idea to have special fast roads specifically for cars,
why not?


>
>

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:27:20 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

>My personal view is that all unknown police officers should be
>treated with suspicion, unless vouched for by a respectable member
>of society.

My view is that they should be treated as someone who's there to do a
job which generally makes my life better. But I'm middle class.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

[James Hodson]

On 17 Jul 2003 13:56:16 GMT,
(wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX) wrote:

>On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with causing an
>obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace along the A12.
>
[SNIP]

This is really dumb. There is no way for me to get to (say) Chichester
without using either the A259 or the A27. Travelling North, I cannot
get to (say) Horsham without using the A24 or a combination of other
less major A roads. Come to think of it, I would need to use either
the A259 or the A27 (death trap) if I wanted to get to Brighton.

That's three compass points for you - to my south I have the English
Channel.

If Sussex Police applied the same rules I'd be forced to restrict my
cycling to a few miles within Worthing's borders and a few nearby
villages.

My only way out of Worthing would be to buy an MTB and use the South
Downs Way. Whoops! I can't do that either; I'd need to use one of
those A roads to access the path.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

[James Annan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:27:20 +0100, David Hansen
> > wrote:
>
> >My personal view is that all unknown police officers should be
> >treated with suspicion, unless vouched for by a respectable member
> >of society.
>
> My view is that they should be treated as someone who's there to do a
> job which generally makes my life better. But I'm middle class.

....and therefore have never actually met one :-)

James

[Dave Larrington]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> I have cycled along them (forbidden!) in the small hours of a weekend
> morning. They were fine!

Back when he live in Wanstead, my mate Ian rode back from a party in the wee
smalls along the A102(M) as it was then. Tha Aged William took a dim view
of this and bade him leave the said road forthwith. As soon as they were
out of sight, of course, he carried on...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[NC]

"Robert McDonald" > wrote in message
m...
> "NC" > wrote
> > (1) The safety issue; a slow moving vehicle on a normally fast moving
dual
> > carriageway at a busy time causes a queue to build up behind it. This
queue
> > can easily be a mile or more in length,
>
> While I broadly agree with this most thoughtful and reasoned argument,
> this bit is a load of bull.

Err, disagree...


> I cycle fast dual carriageways every day and my bike has never, ever
> been the cause of a tailback of any length.

I agree. I've also cycled along a 70mph rated dual carriageway at peak times
and not caused obstructions.

The case depends on whether Peter was guilty of willful obstruction. I
wasn't a witness, and to date, have only seen Peter's side of the case, so I
am trying not to state an opinion. Evidently the police believe that he was
willfully causing an obstruction, which is different to taking your vehicle
along a legal route.


The potentially worrying part of the case is based in whether the opinion of
a (single?) police officer on obstruction is sufficient to prevent someone
taking their vehicle legally along the highway. In my opinion, whether this
is a real issue depends on the manner in which Peter was cycling (I repeat,
I wasn't there, so don't know).
If he was reasonably to his side of the lane, riding in a largely straight
line, then I am appauled that he was even cautioned.
If, however, he was deliberately obstructing an entire lane of a normally
fast dual carriageway then that is a fundamentally different matter, and he
may be guilty of the offence. (This seems to me analogous to walking along
a road; nobody can complain if you walk along the side of the carriageway,
but if I were to walk along the centre of a lane with the intention of
bringing traffic to a crawl, this would seem to me to be willful
obstruction. It would have nothing to do with my legal right to walk along
the road)

Regardless of the obstruction issue, it doesn't alter the validity of his
underlying campaign about the design of junctions and cycling provision.


> Granted a
JCB, tractor or
> whatever can hold up the inside lane but there are two lanes for
> goodness sake.
>
> Are JCBs, tractors and other slow moving heavy vehicles banned from
> this road? No, I thought not.

Not the point. I was making the safety issue (an unintended secondary
consequence of a legal action), not the legality of being there. I wasn't
making a case for any change in the legality of vehicles on certain roads. I
tried to make my wording clear.


NC.

[NC]

"wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX" > wrote in message
...
> My feeling is, and I could be barking up the wrong tree, but Peter
announcing
> his cycle, in advance, has resulted in plod being rubbed up the wrong way
and
> over-reacting.


( I'm not a lawyer, so any lawyers out there, please correct any errors or
misunderstandings.)

The police may have over-reacted, or they may have allowed one protest (with
a caution), then decided that deliberately blocking the A12 on a second day
was unnacceptable. See my other posting this evening for elaboration.

IMHO, Peter had little choice but to announce his campaign; there is little
point in a campaign that the press do not report ! The questionably bit was
the second day's cycle ride. Might have been better to force a resolution of
the caution from the first day's protest. However, there is a long way to
go in the campaign, I hope it stays on the main topic; safety of road
design.


> The downside is, if the case goes through, cyclists as a
whole
> could easily lose out. That's why this case must be stopped in its tracks.

Disagree. It might set a precident, or it might not. If the case revolves
only around a willful obstruction charge, this does not appear to set any
precidents. See my other posting.


Whilst the obstruction charge needs watching with care, I think its more
important to get back to Peter's main safety campaign issue: his claims that
cyclists are being endangered by proposals from road planners.


Another legal thought has occured to me
I assume Peter's case will be before the magistrate, not the county court.
Therefore no precident can be set by the outcome of the case. This has an
important bearing - a legal advisor might decide not to take the case to a
higher court (eg. on appeal) for fear of a precident being set. (I
understand this happens in other areas of the law).


NC.

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

> then decided that deliberately blocking the A12 on a second day
>was unnacceptable.

Certainly from the TV news footage of Peter cycling, he did not block anything
- he did not obstruct anything. From the TV footage of his cycling, certainly
on that bit shown he was cycling at a moderate pace in a reasonable manner,
prob less than a metre out from the kerb.

Cheers, helen s




~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:34:06 +0100, Gonzalez
> wrote:

>I have no problem with a cycle ban through the Blackwall Tunnel. I do
>have a problem when they start to ban bicycles on normal A roads.
>Where will it end?
>

There's a certain hump back bridge a few miles away from my house. The
road used to be part of the A259 (Worthing to Littlehamster road - and
back again) but is now a bit of a backwater as it was replaced by a
dual carrageway some time ago. There is a "Cyclists Dismount" sign
halfway up the bridge, which is interesting as there is no pavement on
either side of the road and the entrance to the suggested cycle path
is some 200 yards back.

I nominate the road designer responsible for this as the Winker of the
day.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

[David Hansen]

On 17 Jul 2003 13:01:00 GMT someone who may be "Arthur Clune"
> wrote this:-

>: in London everything I see personally and in the news
>: convinces that police corruption is endemic.
>
>Pretty much everyone I've ever met who lives in London assumes that
>the rest of the country is the same. It's not.

When I lived in London I did not assume that.

I have not lived in London for a considerable time.

I stand by my comments on police officials.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:34:06 +0100 someone who may be Gonzalez
> wrote this:-

>I do
>have a problem when they start to ban bicycles on normal A roads.
>Where will it end?

Precisely. The "cycle friendly" council in Edinburgh is trying to
ban cyclists from the A90 at the moment, forcing them to use a
grotty Sustrans cycle "facility" instead.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[Arthur Clune]

David Hansen > wrote:

: I stand by my comments on police officials.

While the attribution may be unclear, I was responding to
Frank X's rather extreme comments.

Your's may have been the same mind since I've not looked back
in the thread to see what they are :)

[Gary Knighton]

On 14 Jul 2003 21:09:13 GMT, contributor WafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX had
scribed:
> Has the CTC been informed of this?
>

One of the CTC Councillors for the West Midlands is aware of the
action. It was through him via the uk-uc list that I found out what
was happening and the background thereof.

Gary

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes
only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an
underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.

[Gary Knighton]

On 17 Jul 2003 13:56:16 GMT, contributor WafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX had scribed:
> On today's local lunchtime news - Peter Fox in court charged with causing an
> obstruction, as a result of cycling at a moderate pace along the A12. This has
> me *livid*. It's an A-class road, not a bloody motorway designation. If this
> case goes through, how long before plod starts stopping cyclists from cycling
> on other A-class roads during rush hour? This case *must* be thrown out.
>

What puzzles me is how this case get beyond the CPS who have the legal knowledge
supposedly to establish whether a case will stand up in court or not. Either,
the solicitor in charge of the case has had a bad day being stuck in a backlog
of traffic on one of the days concerned or is a campaigner trying to establish a
precedent one way or the other. The implications of the case, should it fail,
have implications beyond that of those for cyclists, considering that horse
riders, horse carriage drivers, milk float drivers, tractor drivers, etc are
also allowed to use dual carriageway trunk roads with a far more interest
results.

Gary - who has ridden on the A33 dual carriageway truck road north of
Southampton prior to the completion of the M3 south of Winchester.

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes
only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an
underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.

[JohnB]

Gary Knighton wrote:

>
>
> What puzzles me is how this case get beyond the CPS who have the legal knowledge
> supposedly to establish whether a case will stand up in court or not. Either,
> the solicitor in charge of the case has had a bad day being stuck in a backlog
> of traffic on one of the days concerned or is a campaigner trying to establish a
> precedent one way or the other. The implications of the case, should it fail,
> have implications beyond that of those for cyclists, considering that horse
> riders, horse carriage drivers, milk float drivers, tractor drivers, etc are
> also allowed to use dual carriageway trunk roads with a far more interest
> results.
>
> Gary - who has ridden on the A33 dual carriageway truck road north of
> Southampton prior to the completion of the M3 south of Winchester.

Me too, several times.

I also covered the M3 sections Basingstoke - Farnborough and Winchester -
Basingstoke and before they were officially opened, which rank amongst the most
boring rides I ever undertook.

John B

[Gary Knighton]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:46:11 +0100, contributor Nc had scribed:
> I assume Peter's case will be before the magistrate, not the county court.
> Therefore no precident can be set by the outcome of the case. This has an
> important bearing - a legal advisor might decide not to take the case to a
> higher court (eg. on appeal) for fear of a precident being set. (I
> understand this happens in other areas of the law).
>

Mentioning this to a CPS friend of mine, he suggested that while the charge
against defendant (Mr Fox) remains as being one of obstruction it will not
go to a higher court in the first instance than that of the magistrate,
however an appeal would be interesting!

Gary

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes
only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an
underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.

[Gary Knighton]

On 18 Jul 2003 18:03:24 GMT, contributor WafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX had scribed:
> Certainly from the TV news footage of Peter cycling, he did not block anything
> - he did not obstruct anything. From the TV footage of his cycling, certainly
> on that bit shown he was cycling at a moderate pace in a reasonable manner,
> prob less than a metre out from the kerb.
>

Perhaps, this could be used in evidence in court.

Gary

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes
only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an
underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.

[wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX]

>Perhaps, this could be used in evidence in court.
>
>Gary

Hopefully he's got a video of the news bulletins in which he became a media
star.

Cheers, helen s


~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h$**$*$el$**e$n$**$d$**$o$*$t**$$s$**$im$mo$ns*@a$ **o$l.c$$*o$*m*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~