A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 4th 13, 01:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On 04/12/2013 12:25, wrote:
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."


Do you think that every infringement of any traffic law should be
prosecuted?


Ads
  #24  
Old December 4th 13, 01:43 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On 04/12/2013 12:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
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?


Is there any need for that last paragraph?
  #25  
Old December 4th 13, 02:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On 04/12/2013 12:43, JNugent wrote:
On 04/12/2013 12:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
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?


Is there any need for that last paragraph?


Well, they are really starting to take the ****, I have even heard
cyclists describe themselves as ' my people'
  #26  
Old December 4th 13, 02:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 12:25:14 UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:

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?


It's time to call the men in white coats.
  #27  
Old December 4th 13, 03:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:01:24 +0000, 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.


Saint Nugent is the highest law.
  #28  
Old December 5th 13, 10:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,736
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:43:54 +0000, JNugent wrote:

On 04/12/2013 12:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
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?


Is there any need for that last paragraph?


No.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it."
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 1906, summing Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of
thought and expression.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire
  #29  
Old December 19th 13, 08:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mark Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 595
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

Rob Morley writes:

But they also stopped cyclists behaving legally, advising some to
wear helmets and hi-viz.


Oh dear. I wonder if that was just a display of individual ignorance,
or if they'd been told to do it.


You can usually rely on the individual ignorance of the ones who
volunteer for this sort of task without having to tell them to do it.
There were almost certainly briefings telling them where to stand,
though. They could hardly have been better positioned to miss lots of
lawbreaking: URL:http://www.youtube.co.uk/watch?v=K51FRxJBb14.

--
Mark
  #30  
Old December 19th 13, 08:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mark Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 595
Default A victory for Alex but Met Police are off-target

writes:

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.


You must have a seriously wide-band obtuse-ometer! He always saturates
mine off the scale on any day of the week.

"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."


`Caught' in this context refers to the all-seeing eye of the council
CCTV camera. ISTR Bertie started a thread about it in here at the time
and JNugent is most likely trying to re-run the same argument he lost
last time in the hope of winning it this time.

Everyone---including the authors of the above cited announcement---knows
that the local dibble cannot be relied upon not to turn a blind eye to
this crime and probably repeatedly commit it themselves whilst motoring
home. Hence the criminal prosecution rate since ASLs were first painted
on and the perceived need to decriminalise enforcement. The attitude of
the London police force could not be made any plainer than what they
write in URL:http://www.tinyurl.com/ASLadvice without questions about
their council tax precept being asked.

--
Mark
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Police target anti-social cycling in Cambridge John Benn UK 11 December 17th 12 12:17 AM
Lancashire police target lawless cyclists Mr. Benn[_9_] UK 2 February 9th 12 08:20 PM
Surrey Police target cyclists Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 8 September 16th 11 11:50 PM
Police Target anti-social cycling mileburner UK 92 April 15th 09 03:23 PM
Police target South Australian cyclists deejbah[_2_] Australia 133 January 15th 08 09:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.