Cyclist fined for speeding in Richmond Park

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.
However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...chmo nd_Park/

On 20/09/2013 12:32, Mrcheerful wrote:
37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.
However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...chmo nd_Park/


Absolutely right that he should be fined. Outrageously dangerous
behaviour, both for himself and others.

Mrcheerful wrote:
37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.
However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...chmo nd_Park/

£15 victim surcharge? Interesting for a royal park.

--
Iain

"Mrcheerful" wrote

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.

I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests a 30m
descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big stretch of
credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of identification
failed to work (for him).

However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.

On 20/09/2013 16:07, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.

I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests a 30m
descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big stretch of
credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of identification
failed to work (for him).

However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.



Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/2013 16:07, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.

I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests a
30m
descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big stretch
of
credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of identification
failed to work (for him).

However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.



Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points on
my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model railway
layout you wouldn't.

On 20/09/2013 16:30, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/2013 16:07, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.

I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests
a 30m
descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big
stretch of
credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of
identification
failed to work (for him).

However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.



Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a diesel
locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a diesel
locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

What happened, did your Mum need her spare room back?

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
On 20/09/2013 16:07, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.

I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests a
30m
descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big stretch
of
credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of identification
failed to work (for him).

However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points on
my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

On the other hand, I don't get the all the whingeing about limits and
cameras. To test the system I once deliberately did 39 indicated (true
36/37) in a 30 and never got a letter. It was a Truvelo, not a Gatso so
should have been reliable. Almost disappointing in a way. (It was an urban
dual carriageway, not a residential road, btw.) I've never found camera cars
particularly scary either.

On 20/09/2013 16:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the
roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a
diesel locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

What happened, did your Mum need her spare room back?

But my mother doesn't have a spare room and I don't live with her. She
lives in a old folks home with my father. I live on my own in my own house.