A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On 03/12/2013 11:28, wrote:
On Friday, 29 November 2013 19:02:52 UTC, JNugent wrote:

So the CTC regards it as "unjust" to make road-users to obey the law.

As long as we know.

It was a consequential action following the motorist's occupation of the cycle box. Why plod didn't have a word with the motorist is the mystery here.

Cyclists are not allowed to cross stop lines when red lights show. The
cyclist could have chosen to stop anywhere before the stop line, such as
next to the car, yet chose not to, and received a ticket quite correctly.
Whether the motorist was at fault in any way is unlnown, but since the
whole incident was witnessed by a Policeman, it seems likely that the
car was stopped in the box quite legally.

On 03/12/2013 11:28, wrote:

On Friday, 29 November 2013 19:02:52 UTC, JNugent wrote:

So the CTC regards it as "unjust" to make road-users to obey the law.
As long as we know.

It was a consequential action following the motorist's occupation of the cycle box.

No.

No-one forced any cyclist to do anything (unless you know better and can
state the make and calibre of the gun).

Why plod didn't have a word with the motorist is the mystery here.

Probably because he or she hadn't committed an offence.

But something has come out of this little incident: we now know that the
CTC regard it as unjust to expect cyclists to behave lawfully or
considerately.

That is a useful piece of knowledge; it enables more realistic source
criticism of their nuttier pronouncements, for a start.

On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 17:32:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2013 11:28, wrote:

It was a consequential action following the motorist's occupation of the cycle box.

No.

No-one forced any cyclist to do anything (unless you know better and can
state the make and calibre of the gun).

Why plod didn't have a word with the motorist is the mystery here.

Probably because he or she hadn't committed an offence.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/28403.aspx

"Drivers caught crossing the first or second advanced stop lines when the signal is red will be liable for a £60 fixed penalty charge and three points on their licence. The only exception to this rule is if the traffic signal changes from green to amber and drivers cannot safely stop before the first stop line. "

On 04/12/2013 09:10, wrote:

On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 17:32:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/12/2013 11:28, wrote:

It was a consequential action following the motorist's occupation of the cycle box.

No.

No-one forced any cyclist to do anything (unless you know better and can
state the make and calibre of the gun).

Why plod didn't have a word with the motorist is the mystery here.

Probably because he or she hadn't committed an offence.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/28403.aspx

"Drivers caught crossing the first or second advanced stop lines when the signal is red will be liable for a £60 fixed penalty charge and three points on their licence. The only exception to this rule is if the traffic signal changes from green to amber and drivers cannot safely stop before the first stop line."

Did you read and understand *all* of what you quoted?

In any event, Transport against London is not the judiciary, or the police.

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 10:01:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 09:10, wrote:



On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 17:32:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:

On 03/12/2013 11:28, wrote:



It was a consequential action following the motorist's occupation of the cycle box.



No.



No-one forced any cyclist to do anything (unless you know better and can

state the make and calibre of the gun).



Why plod didn't have a word with the motorist is the mystery here.



Probably because he or she hadn't committed an offence.



http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/28403.aspx



"Drivers caught crossing the first or second advanced stop lines when the signal is red will be liable for a �60 fixed penalty charge and three points on their licence. The only exception to this rule is if the traffic signal changes from green to amber and drivers cannot safely stop before the first stop line."


Did you read and understand *all* of what you quoted?

In any event, Transport against London is not the judiciary, or the police.

From my experience, it's rare that the "exception" applies. As I said, plod could have "had a word" even if he hadn't seen the infringement occur and was giving the motorist the benefit of the doubt.

On 04/12/2013 10:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 10:01:24 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 09:10, wrote:



On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 17:32:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:

On 03/12/2013 11:28, wrote:



It was a consequential action following the motorist's occupation of the cycle box.



No.



No-one forced any cyclist to do anything (unless you know better and can

state the make and calibre of the gun).



Why plod didn't have a word with the motorist is the mystery here.



Probably because he or she hadn't committed an offence.



http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/28403.aspx



"Drivers caught crossing the first or second advanced stop lines when the signal is red will be liable for a �60 fixed penalty charge and three points on their licence. The only exception to this rule is if the traffic signal changes from green to amber and drivers cannot safely stop before the first stop line."


Did you read and understand *all* of what you quoted?

In any event, Transport against London is not the judiciary, or the police.

From my experience, it's rare that the "exception" applies. As I said, plod could have "had a word" even if he hadn't seen the infringement occur and was giving the motorist the benefit of the doubt.

So... there's no evidence of an offence...

....what does "the word" consist of?

"Now listen to me, my lad... I don't want to catch you driving that car
lawfully and in compliance with the Highway Code again... do you hear?"?

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 10:56:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 10:12, wrote:

From my experience, it's rare that the "exception" applies. As I said, plod could have "had a word" even if he hadn't seen the infringement occur and was giving the motorist the benefit of the doubt.

So... there's no evidence of an offence...

I accept that if PC didn't see the prior events he's no evidence to nick him, so he should remind the driver of the purpose of the cycle box rather than assume, probably wrongly, that the "exception" applies.

On 04/12/2013 12:09, wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 10:56:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 10:12, wrote:

From my experience, it's rare that the "exception" applies. As I said, plod could have "had a word" even if he hadn't seen the infringement occur and was giving the motorist the benefit of the doubt.

So... there's no evidence of an offence...

I accept that if PC didn't see the prior events he's no evidence to nick him,

Even if he had seen "the prior events", there need be no reason to
"nick" the driver.

so he should remind the driver of the purpose of the cycle box rather than assume, probably wrongly, that the "exception" applies.

Why would the policeman conclude that the driver is not as aware of the
law as the policeman himself?

Perhaps you really mean that the policemen should use every opportunity
to "remind" all drivers stopped at red traffic lights of the law on red
traffic lights?

On 04/12/2013 12:13, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 12:09, wrote:

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 10:56:10 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 10:12, wrote:

From my experience, it's rare that the "exception" applies. As I
said, plod could have "had a word" even if he hadn't seen the
infringement occur and was giving the motorist the benefit of the
doubt.

So... there's no evidence of an offence...

I accept that if PC didn't see the prior events he's no evidence to
nick him,

Even if he had seen "the prior events", there need be no reason to
"nick" the driver.

so he should remind the driver of the purpose of the cycle box rather
than assume, probably wrongly, that the "exception" applies.

Why would the policeman conclude that the driver is not as aware of the
law as the policeman himself?

Perhaps you really mean that the policemen should use every opportunity
to "remind" all drivers stopped at red traffic lights of the law on red
traffic lights?

What? the law that applies to the users of all wheeled vehicles? I
think that the cyclists would be up in arms about that, after all, their
journeys are too important to interrupt by stopping at red lights, or
give way lines, or pedestrian crossings. In fact, if I ever get stopped
for anything again I am going to play the 'I'm a cyclist' card and
therefore immune to prosecution/road laws.

I wonder how long it will be before there is a new set of laws that give
all sorts of rights to cyclists, they will be become the new jews, and
it will be forbidden to say anything against them. ADL for cyclists,
anyone?

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 12:13:49 UTC, JNugent wrote:

Even if he had seen "the prior events", there need be no reason to
"nick" the driver.

Depends what they were. You're being particularly obtuse today.
"Drivers caught crossing the first or second advanced stop lines when the signal is red will be liable for a £60 fixed penalty charge and three points on their licence. The only exception to this rule is if the traffic signal changes from green to amber and drivers cannot safely stop before the first stop line."