Pavement cyclist fined.

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

--
Simon Mason

On 20/07/2011 08:47, Simon Mason wrote:
She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

Now perhaps you could post up all the previous "In the courts" columns
which you've looked through and found derisory penalties for cyclists in
(or no penalties at all)?

While we're at it...£200 for possession of cannabis, including a
"victims' surcharge"...what f**king victims? I'll sure sleep easier at
night knowing that that menace to society has been dealt with. You can
just imagine the harm he was causing to everyone around him by having a
bit of plant material in his pocket.

And a 12-month conditional discharge for stealing four legs of lamb from
Tesco...what did Tesco get for stealing them from the poor little
lamb...? (Or are they still on the lam for that? I'll get me coat....)

All the "crimes" listed are notable for being easy to clear up. It
seems that it's true what they say ("they" often being retired cops):
the police never bother investigating crimes anymore. If the evidence
isn't handed to them on a plate, thereby making the crime easy to solve,
they don't want to know...they don't want you bothering them...can't you
see that they're busy? Can't you sort it out yourself? Anyone would
think you paid their wages or something.

It's all about reaching their target figures as quickly and easily as
possible, and what the public wants doesn't come into it. If some
scumbag stabs you and then legs it, and there's nothing in the way of
CCTV or fingerprints, then you can't expect the police to make the
slightest effort to catch them, let alone succeed. The real criminals
must be wetting themselves with laughter at how easy their "trade" has
become...just another way in which this country has become a laughing stock.

The solution: get rid of the targets (or at least make them a lot more
"intelligent" so that they reflect what the public actually want the
police to do), cut down the ridiculous amount of form-filling and get
police staff to do the remaining admin so that the officers can do what
they're trained for (like investigating and getting out on the beat),
and make police chiefs elected (so that we never get anyone like the mad
car-hating Richard Brunstrom again). Not rocket science, and "they"
have been talking about it for years, so why the hell haven't they
sorted it out yet?

On Jul 20, 9:52*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On 20/07/2011 08:47, Simon Mason wrote:

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

Now perhaps you could post up all the previous "In the courts" columns
which you've looked through and found derisory penalties for cyclists in
(or no penalties at all)?


Do you want me to post a copy of every fine cyclist pay from our local
"In the courts" column?

--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

For all we know, the cyclist may have left a pedestrian seriously
crippled as a result of her antisocial behaviour - but the only charge
possible was cycling on the footway.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

Was the cyclist banned from riding any bicycle for 17-20 months?

On Jul 20, 4:58*pm, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Simon Mason" wrote in message

...

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

Was the cyclist banned from riding any bicycle for 17-20 months?

That is not the penalty for cycling on the pavement.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/07/2011 14:59, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:52 am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On 20/07/2011 08:47, Simon Mason wrote:

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

Now perhaps you could post up all the previous "In the courts" columns
which you've looked through and found derisory penalties for cyclists in
(or no penalties at all)?


Do you want me to post a copy of every fine cyclist pay from our local
"In the courts" column?

Yes.

On Jul 20, 6:38*pm, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On 20/07/2011 14:59, Simon Mason wrote:





On Jul 20, 9:52 am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On 20/07/2011 08:47, Simon Mason wrote:

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

Now perhaps you could post up all the previous "In the courts" columns
which you've looked through and found derisory penalties for cyclists in
(or no penalties at all)?

Do you want me to post a copy of every fine cyclist pay from our local
"In the courts" column?

Yes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK - will do.
Today's was interesting.
A guy was fined 300 quid and got a 6 month ban for driving while using
a phone - sounds like a serial law breaker for that sort of penalty.
No cyclists in court today though.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/07/11 16:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.

So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.

For all we know, the cyclist may have left a pedestrian seriously
crippled as a result of her antisocial behaviour - but the only charge
possible was cycling on the footway.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

If that was the case it is extremely likely there would be a news
article about it somewhere.

On 20/07/2011 08:47, Simon Mason wrote:

She has to pay a total of 275 quid, whereas the first driver was only
stung for 215 quid for drinking and driving and the second one just
200 pounds.
So much for cyclists getting away lightly when they break the law.
http://www.swldxer.co.uk/fines.jpg

You seem to be overlooking the 12-month (or longer) disqualifications from
driving, which are almost certainly going to cost each of those drivers a lot
more than their fines.

Arguably, since cyclists cannot be banned (except maybe via an ASBO in a
restricted area), their financial penalty should be that much more severe -
maybe 10 times the typical fine associated with an alcohol-related ban, and
the cycle confiscated on the spot and crushed on conviction. And this is
precisely *because* the financial penalty is all that it available to the
justice system in respect of anti-social acts like footway-cycling.

Those drug-possession penalties seem very lenient. A deliberate and defiant
anti-social crime*. At least two of the convicted didn't even get a fine.

BTW: Is this just one day at the courts in Hull?


[* I know you'll agree with me because in a nearby thread, you boast of
always obeying the law and never asking why it is in place.]