cyclist thinks that stop lines don't apply to cyclists

On 21/09/2013 16:12, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 10:48, Brian Roberts0n wrote:
On 21/09/2013 15:11, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:07, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:23, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 14:25, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 19/09/2013 20:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:08:02 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
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







The cyclist broke the law and now he's whining. He should just
accept it
and learn from his expensive lesson. Why do some cyclists think
that
laws
don't apply to them?

Probably for a similar reason to motorists who appeal their speeding
tickets when they were clearly speeding.


Well said.

Not really.

Assuming not based on alibi or mistaken identity, appeals with respect
to "speeding" are invariably based on a challenge as to the
accuracy of
the detection equipment used and/or the manner in which it has been
maintained and deployed, or both.

If "speeding" was at all obvious to a third party (it just isn't, for
the simple reason that speed is not something you can just see, like
cycling through a red light is) there would be no need for
speedometers
or for police speed measurement equipment.

So the premise "they were clearly speeding" is a false one on any
footing.


Or perhaps there are simply too many ways for motorists to wriggle out
of speeding convictions when they have, clearly, been speeding?

You are making the same mistake as Wooster.

You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,
honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might
imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.

OTOH, you can see an offence of red light jumping or footway cycling
with the Mk I Eyeball.

Of course that is absolute, utter rubbish. We can know that somebody is
speeding simply by comparison to our own speed.

That is a version of "measurement by scientific means".

You are using your vehicle as part of the apparatus.

The police can use that method, but they have to calibrate their
speedometers and be trained on how to "pace" other vehicles.

Without that, you're back to unsupported opinion.



Of course it is unsupported. Where did I say that drivers should be
prosecuted for speeding without scientific evidence?

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:13:20 -0400, jnugent
wrote:

You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,
honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might
imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.

You do when you drive down the M1 at 70mph and the only vehicles you
pass are HGVs or other speed restricted vehicles, and the only cars
you see are those which pass you.

You are very trusting of the accuracy of your own possessions.

I repeat: you may well imagine or suppose something. You don't *know* it
with the certainty properly required by the courts.

Are you suggesting that if you saw a cyclist in London jump a red
light, the court would accept your word and your word alone?

On Saturday, 21 September 2013 16:09:38 UTC+1, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 10:24, thirty-six wrote:


Now let us get real, to whose eyeball is it an offence?

Everybody's.


I have said, not to me, and you understand yet you lie.




The offence lies in what is done. Not in the speed at which it was done.


What specifically is offensive to the eyes of your self?

On Saturday, 21 September 2013 18:49:49 UTC+1, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:13:20 -0400, jnugent

wrote:



You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,

honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might

imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.



You do when you drive down the M1 at 70mph and the only vehicles you

pass are HGVs or other speed restricted vehicles, and the only cars

you see are those which pass you.



You are very trusting of the accuracy of your own possessions.



I repeat: you may well imagine or suppose something. You don't *know* it

with the certainty properly required by the courts.



Are you suggesting that if you saw a cyclist in London jump a red

light, the court would accept your word and your word alone?


prosecution requires a Personal admission by the Offender. persecution creates the mental state of guilt. don't fall for it, have no guilt-tyes.

On 21/09/2013 15:48, Brian Roberts0n wrote:
On 21/09/2013 15:11, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:07, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:23, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 14:25, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 19/09/2013 20:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:08:02 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
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






The cyclist broke the law and now he's whining. He should just
accept it
and learn from his expensive lesson. Why do some cyclists think
that
laws
don't apply to them?

Probably for a similar reason to motorists who appeal their speeding
tickets when they were clearly speeding.


Well said.

Not really.

Assuming not based on alibi or mistaken identity, appeals with respect
to "speeding" are invariably based on a challenge as to the accuracy of
the detection equipment used and/or the manner in which it has been
maintained and deployed, or both.

If "speeding" was at all obvious to a third party (it just isn't, for
the simple reason that speed is not something you can just see, like
cycling through a red light is) there would be no need for speedometers
or for police speed measurement equipment.

So the premise "they were clearly speeding" is a false one on any
footing.


Or perhaps there are simply too many ways for motorists to wriggle out
of speeding convictions when they have, clearly, been speeding?

You are making the same mistake as Wooster.

You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,
honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might
imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.

OTOH, you can see an offence of red light jumping or footway cycling
with the Mk I Eyeball.

Of course that is absolute, utter rubbish. We can know that somebody is
speeding simply by comparison to our own speed. I can also walk outside
my house and see a speed indicator near a school flash over and over
again to warn people that they are exceeding the 20 mph speed limit.
That isn't to say that anyone should be prosecuted on the basis of an
unscientific observation, but we are all qualified to look at the
average road and be fairly certain that speeding is endemic.

My answer would be to hide speed cameras and to make them much more
mobile. Nowhere should be safe for speeding cars.

I expect that you meant speeding vehicles, that is vehicles travelling
at a higher speed than is safe.

On 21/09/2013 20:14, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 21/09/2013 15:48, Brian Roberts0n wrote:
On 21/09/2013 15:11, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:07, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:23, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 14:25, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 19/09/2013 20:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:08:02 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
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







The cyclist broke the law and now he's whining. He should just
accept it
and learn from his expensive lesson. Why do some cyclists think
that
laws
don't apply to them?

Probably for a similar reason to motorists who appeal their speeding
tickets when they were clearly speeding.


Well said.

Not really.

Assuming not based on alibi or mistaken identity, appeals with respect
to "speeding" are invariably based on a challenge as to the
accuracy of
the detection equipment used and/or the manner in which it has been
maintained and deployed, or both.

If "speeding" was at all obvious to a third party (it just isn't, for
the simple reason that speed is not something you can just see, like
cycling through a red light is) there would be no need for
speedometers
or for police speed measurement equipment.

So the premise "they were clearly speeding" is a false one on any
footing.


Or perhaps there are simply too many ways for motorists to wriggle out
of speeding convictions when they have, clearly, been speeding?

You are making the same mistake as Wooster.

You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,
honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might
imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.

OTOH, you can see an offence of red light jumping or footway cycling
with the Mk I Eyeball.

Of course that is absolute, utter rubbish. We can know that somebody is
speeding simply by comparison to our own speed. I can also walk outside
my house and see a speed indicator near a school flash over and over
again to warn people that they are exceeding the 20 mph speed limit.
That isn't to say that anyone should be prosecuted on the basis of an
unscientific observation, but we are all qualified to look at the
average road and be fairly certain that speeding is endemic.

My answer would be to hide speed cameras and to make them much more
mobile. Nowhere should be safe for speeding cars.

I expect that you meant speeding vehicles, that is vehicles travelling
at a higher speed than is safe.

Well, yes, but I have nothing against targeting cars particularly.

On 21/09/2013 13:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:13:20 -0400, jnugent
wrote:

You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,
honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might
imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.

You do when you drive down the M1 at 70mph and the only vehicles you
pass are HGVs or other speed restricted vehicles, and the only cars
you see are those which pass you.

You are very trusting of the accuracy of your own possessions.

I repeat: you may well imagine or suppose something. You don't *know* it
with the certainty properly required by the courts.

Are you suggesting that if you saw a cyclist in London jump a red
light, the court would accept your word and your word alone?

A court might do that (it would CERTAINLY accept a police officer's
word), and if it did, the evidence of a witness would need no technical
or scientific support.

It's a binary choice. Was the light red? Did the cyclist cycle through
against a red light?

If the answers are "yes" and "yes" he's committed an offence and that's
all there is to it.

I suppose that some Philadelphia lawyer might question whether the
witness suffers from colour blindness. I don't.

On 21/09/2013 11:41, Terence Appleby wrote:
On 21/09/2013 16:12, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 10:48, Brian Roberts0n wrote:
On 21/09/2013 15:11, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:07, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:23, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 14:25, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 19/09/2013 20:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:08:02 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
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








The cyclist broke the law and now he's whining. He should just
accept it
and learn from his expensive lesson. Why do some cyclists think
that
laws
don't apply to them?

Probably for a similar reason to motorists who appeal their
speeding
tickets when they were clearly speeding.


Well said.

Not really.

Assuming not based on alibi or mistaken identity, appeals with
respect
to "speeding" are invariably based on a challenge as to the
accuracy of
the detection equipment used and/or the manner in which it has been
maintained and deployed, or both.

If "speeding" was at all obvious to a third party (it just isn't, for
the simple reason that speed is not something you can just see, like
cycling through a red light is) there would be no need for
speedometers
or for police speed measurement equipment.

So the premise "they were clearly speeding" is a false one on any
footing.


Or perhaps there are simply too many ways for motorists to wriggle out
of speeding convictions when they have, clearly, been speeding?

You are making the same mistake as Wooster.

You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,
honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might
imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.

OTOH, you can see an offence of red light jumping or footway cycling
with the Mk I Eyeball.

Of course that is absolute, utter rubbish. We can know that somebody is
speeding simply by comparison to our own speed.

That is a version of "measurement by scientific means".
You are using your vehicle as part of the apparatus.
The police can use that method, but they have to calibrate their
speedometers and be trained on how to "pace" other vehicles.
Without that, you're back to unsupported opinion.

Of course it is unsupported. Where did I say that drivers should be
prosecuted for speeding without scientific evidence?

If you didn't and don't, fair enough.

Without technical, measured, evidence, it is not possible to say what
speed an object is travelling at. Or that it is or is not faster than a
given arbitrary speed.

On Sunday, 22 September 2013 01:55:57 UTC+1, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:13:20 -0400, jnugent

wrote:



You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,

honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might

imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.



You do when you drive down the M1 at 70mph and the only vehicles you

pass are HGVs or other speed restricted vehicles, and the only cars

you see are those which pass you.



You are very trusting of the accuracy of your own possessions.



I repeat: you may well imagine or suppose something. You don't *know* it

with the certainty properly required by the courts.



Are you suggesting that if you saw a cyclist in London jump a red

light, the court would accept your word and your word alone?



A court might do that (it would CERTAINLY accept a police officer's

word), and if it did, the evidence of a witness would need no technical

or scientific support.



It's a binary choice. Was the light red? Did the cyclist cycle through

against a red light?



If the answers are "yes" and "yes" he's committed an offence and that's

all there is to it.



I suppose that some Philadelphia lawyer might question whether the

witness suffers from colour blindness. I don't.


Er, unless the Witness was distracted cue busty and leggy young woman at the moment and simply imagined seeing the light was red as the Defendant passed the stop line.

Then the turn of the defendant, should the distraction technique fail, "I wus carrying a delicate load, that of a dozen eggs, and by the time the light showed red, could not have safely stopped before the line without breaking me eggs".

On Sunday, 22 September 2013 03:29:11 UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
On Sunday, 22 September 2013 01:55:57 UTC+1, jnugent wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:



On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:13:20 -0400, jnugent



wrote:







You don't know that anyone is speeding unless his speed is accurately,



honestly and dependably measured with scientific equipment. You might



imagine almost anything, but you don't *know* it.







You do when you drive down the M1 at 70mph and the only vehicles you



pass are HGVs or other speed restricted vehicles, and the only cars



you see are those which pass you.







You are very trusting of the accuracy of your own possessions.







I repeat: you may well imagine or suppose something. You don't *know* it



with the certainty properly required by the courts.







Are you suggesting that if you saw a cyclist in London jump a red



light, the court would accept your word and your word alone?







A court might do that (it would CERTAINLY accept a police officer's



word), and if it did, the evidence of a witness would need no technical



or scientific support.







It's a binary choice. Was the light red? Did the cyclist cycle through



against a red light?







If the answers are "yes" and "yes" he's committed an offence and that's



all there is to it.







I suppose that some Philadelphia lawyer might question whether the



witness suffers from colour blindness. I don't.






Er, unless the Witness [XXX Witless] was distracted cue busty and leggy young woman at the moment and simply imagined seeing the light was red as the Defendant passed the stop line. [what with the bright red lips]




Then the turn of the defendant, should the distraction technique fail, "I wus carrying a delicate load, that of a dozen eggs, and by the time the light showed red, could not have safely stopped before the line without breaking me eggs".