cyclist thinks that stop lines don't apply to cyclists

Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet
this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is
challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone
to challenge fpns for stop line offences.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 20:11:31 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet

this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is

challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone

to challenge fpns for stop line offences.



http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html

It's called lawful excuse. The Law says that when a Cyclist is using a feeder lane, that Person must stop within the reserved space, not before, not after. Yet when we get to the reserved space and find it is occupied it is impossible to stay within the bounds of the law. Motor cars commonly take up this space, sometimes illegally.

The walls keep creeping in, the bars are getting tighter.

On 18/09/2013 20:11, Mrcheerful wrote:
Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet
this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is
challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone
to challenge fpns for stop line offences.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html


Now seriously here... without prejudice against any road user, I
frequently go ahead of the stop line and wait. If I was to be prosecuted
for that I would be wanting to know why MILLIONS of car drivers that
ignore the stop line and creep to the ASL are not prosecuted. You would
be hard put on most days at most junctions to find a line of traffic
that stops short of the stop line and doesn't creep forward. I mean, I
don't like speeding cars, but I don't agree with the ashole in North
Wales who booked people for doing 31 in a 30. There has to be SOME give
and take.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:28:36 -0700 (PDT), thirty-six
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 20:11:31 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet

this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is

challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone

to challenge fpns for stop line offences.



http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html

It's called lawful excuse. The Law says that when a Cyclist is using a feeder lane, that Person must stop within the reserved space, not before, not after. Yet when we get to the reserved space and find it is occupied it is impossible to stay within the bounds of the law. Motor cars commonly take up this space, sometimes illegally.

The walls keep creeping in, the bars are getting tighter.

I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that a magistrate would have
no option but to find the cyclist guilty. This could be overturned by
a higher court, but I don't suppose a magistrate has any authority to
ignore the law as it stands.

On 18/09/2013 13:28, thirty-six wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 20:11:31 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet

this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is

challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone

to challenge fpns for stop line offences.



http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html

It's called lawful excuse.

There is no available lawful excuse (other than force majeure) in the
case of an absolute offence which is not uninsured driving of an
employer's or hired vehicle.

The Law says that when a Cyclist is using a feeder lane, that Person must stop within the reserved space, not before, not after.

There is no compulsion to use the stolen space. A cyclist is at lawful
liberty to wait behind the first line like anyone else.

HTH.

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 22:37:19 UTC+1, jnugent wrote:
On 18/09/2013 13:28, thirty-six wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 20:11:31 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:

Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet



this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is



challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone



to challenge fpns for stop line offences.







http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html



It's called lawful excuse.



There is no available lawful excuse (other than force majeure) in the

case of an absolute offence which is not uninsured driving of an

employer's or hired vehicle.



The Law says that when a Cyclist is using a feeder lane, that Person must stop within the reserved space, not before, not after.



There is no compulsion to use the stolen space. A cyclist is at lawful

liberty to wait behind the first line like anyone else.



HTH.

Nah, IIRC, it says, infers or is ambiguous, (can't remember specifically)the rider must leave the feeder lane and enter the space. It's just like when overtaking on a single carriageway and one moves up to pass and the vehicle to the left accelerates so one has to exceed the speed limit to complete the overtake in order to minimise the apparent risk, sometimes a big truck at a closing speed of over 100mph. EEK!

On 18/09/2013 23:03, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Now seriously here... without prejudice against any road user, I
frequently go ahead of the stop line and wait. If I was to be
prosecuted for that I would be wanting to know why MILLIONS of car
drivers that ignore the stop line and creep to the ASL are not
prosecuted. You would be hard put on most days at most junctions to
find a line of traffic that stops short of the stop line and doesn't
creep forward.

Well, they all need a good slap then. If it becomes customary and
acceptable to do that, everyone is less safe.

I'd like to see the police target key junctions and systematically
ticket all the cyclist RLJ's, all the motorised amber-gamblers, all the
ASL invaders. Modern urban traffic works because there are clear rules
and we trust each other to follow them. Enforcement must be applied
periodically to rein in the transgressors.

Agree regarding Richard Brunstrom, the man was an idiot. Exploiting
photos of a dead biker's decapitated corpse for his demented campaign
was unforgivable.




We certainly all need a good dose of 'consequences' for our behaviour on
the road.

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:03:49 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan"
wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
m...

Now seriously here... without prejudice against any road user, I
frequently go ahead of the stop line and wait. If I was to be prosecuted
for that I would be wanting to know why MILLIONS of car drivers that
ignore the stop line and creep to the ASL are not prosecuted. You would be
hard put on most days at most junctions to find a line of traffic that
stops short of the stop line and doesn't creep forward.

Well, they all need a good slap then. If it becomes customary and
acceptable to do that, everyone is less safe.

I'd like to see the police target key junctions and systematically ticket
all the cyclist RLJ's, all the motorised amber-gamblers, all the ASL
invaders. Modern urban traffic works because there are clear rules and we
trust each other to follow them. Enforcement must be applied periodically
to rein in the transgressors.

I feel that there is a good case for decriminalising such behaviour,
and allowing local authorities to enforce their own traffic lights
with fixed penalty notices. Westminster council do an excellent job of
enforcing parking restrictions (in 2011/12 they raised over
£25,000,000 from FPNs), and they could be used to train other local
authorities to enforce restrictions effectively.

Agree regarding Richard Brunstrom, the man was an idiot. Exploiting photos
of a dead biker's decapitated corpse for his demented campaign was
unforgivable.

If I recall correctly, the problem was that he did not ask the dead
motorcyclist's family if he may use the photographs.

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 20:11:31 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet

this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is

challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone

to challenge fpns for stop line offences.



http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html

It's called lawful excuse.

No it isn't, lawful excuse would apply only if he had no reasonable
alternative. In my experience, and reading between the lines, this cyclist
could easily have stopped where it was legal and safe to do so, but as a
symbolic middle finger to the motorists, he just *had* to position himself
in front of them all (in the middle of their lane) even if it meant
disregarding his own safety and the law. That's what they do. How *dare*
someone be in front of me at a red light?? I'll show them, I'm a cyclist and
more important than all of them.

There's no way he'll win this case.

On Thursday, 19 September 2013 10:54:49 UTC+1, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"thirty-six" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 20:11:31 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:

Should be interesting, crossing a stop line is an absolute offence. Yet



this cyclist is whinging that he was forced to cross it and is



challenging his FPN, if he wins it could open the floodgates to everyone



to challenge fpns for stop line offences.







http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...ty-notice.html



It's called lawful excuse.



No it isn't, lawful excuse would apply only if he had no reasonable
alternative.

That could only be determined by the man at the time.

In my experience, and reading between the lines, this cyclist

I believe it to be a man. Does he have to get his goolies out to prove it?

could easily have stopped where it was legal and safe to do so, but as a

No, the law compels (if you be understanding) one to exit the feeder lane at its meeting point with the Reserved-area.

symbolic middle finger to the motorists, he just *had* to position himself
in front of them all (in the middle of their lane) even if it meant
disregarding his own safety and the law. That's what they do. How *dare*

You would have to fabricate the Evidence to support that view.

someone be in front of me at a red light?? I'll show them, I'm a cyclist and
more important than all of them.

Your expressed views show more about yourself.

There's no way he'll win this case.

That's not his aim. He intent is to defend his position of innocence.