Any tips for filming mobile phone using cagers?

On 18 Jul 2008 15:24:52 +0100 (BST), (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

In article , Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:47:22 +0100, judith

People can and have been prosecuted for not following the Highway
Code.

Really. Case references?

She couldn't provide a reference in the last thread she claimed this in,
a thread in she went on to boast of the length her trolling had successfully
dragged it out to. I wouldn't expect her to behave any differently this time.


Careless driving or 'driving without due care and attention' applies
to any driving which falls below the standard of a reasonable and
prudent driver. The common yardstick is whether the driver adhered to
the rules of the Highway Code - irrespective as to whether they broke
a different specific law.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:11:13 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:58 +0100, Mark McNeill
wrote:

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?
Very roughly, it is not legally required to comply with an ACOP, but
if you don't comply, and something goes wrong, you better have a very
good explanation for the judge.
Sure. Like better or more specific advice from another code of
practice :-)

We saw this with the Cadden case.
I was thinking of this case, and also of those civil cases relating to
reductions in insurance payouts due to negligence by not wearing a cycle
helmet: both in these civil cases and in the criminal case of Daniel
Cadden, the courts appear to have gone with the point of view of
Cyclecraft [via the evidence of its author, who appeared as an
expert witness], and not the advice in the HC. (Of course, the Cadden
case occurred under the older version of the HC; I forget how it phrased
its advice on cycle lanes.)


It's an interesting question, and I'd like to know of other court cases
where the HC's advice is contradicted in Cyclecraft: but in these
examples I have heard of, the courts seem to have favoured Cyclecraft
over the HC. I'd be interested in counter-examples. [I understand that
judith may not be able to parse that last sentence. ;-)]

Given that I've never heard of Cyclecraft being quoted in other cases
I can't.

When are you going to learn that, you not knowing of something, or you
not beleiving something or even you not having heard of something does
not mean that it hasn't happened or doesn't exist?

However, as you say that you have heard of other cases where
it has been quoted and favoured - perhaps you could give us their
details

Find it yourself.


Yet another who is not familiar with usenet common practice. Seems
reasonable if someone states something as a fact that they can back it
up when asked.

Perhaps it is just URC where this practice is not followed.

There certainly seems to be a number of people who will state
something - but then when asked just cannot back it up.

If someone says (for example) : "but in these examples I have heard
of, the courts seem to have favoured Cyclecraft over the HC. " - but
then they can't back it up - there must be doubt about the veracity of
their statement.

Do you know of any other cases where Cyclecraft has been favoured over
the HC ?

judith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:52:56 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:

snip


People can and have been prosecuted for not following the Highway
Code.
No they can't no they haven't , unless you want to ge toff your arse and
try to prove otherwise. I will give you a clue, people can and have
been prosecuted for breaking various laws mentioned in the HC, but your
free to find a prosecution for "not following the HC"

Ah - I see you are not familiar with Careless Driving.
I see it most days.

Careless driving or 'driving without due care and attention' applies
to any driving which falls below the standard of a reasonable and
prudent driver. The common yardstick is whether the driver adhered to
the rules of the Highway Code - irrespective as to whether they broke
a different specific law.

It's normal practice to acknowledge your sources when publishing someone
elses work, it shows that you haven't just plucked it out of the air.

But thank you for proving yourself wrong ( again), your text ( if it is
yours) shows that you haven't found a prosecution for not following the
Highway Code. For a troll whos base seems to be UK.legal you really do
seem to have a problem seperating a law and something that might be used
as a reference.

(No need to apologise for being wrong - I understand it is not the
done thing in URC)

judith wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:11:13 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:58 +0100, Mark McNeill
wrote:

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?
Very roughly, it is not legally required to comply with an ACOP, but
if you don't comply, and something goes wrong, you better have a very
good explanation for the judge.
Sure. Like better or more specific advice from another code of
practice :-)

We saw this with the Cadden case.
I was thinking of this case, and also of those civil cases relating to
reductions in insurance payouts due to negligence by not wearing a cycle
helmet: both in these civil cases and in the criminal case of Daniel
Cadden, the courts appear to have gone with the point of view of
Cyclecraft [via the evidence of its author, who appeared as an
expert witness], and not the advice in the HC. (Of course, the Cadden
case occurred under the older version of the HC; I forget how it phrased
its advice on cycle lanes.)


It's an interesting question, and I'd like to know of other court cases
where the HC's advice is contradicted in Cyclecraft: but in these
examples I have heard of, the courts seem to have favoured Cyclecraft
over the HC. I'd be interested in counter-examples. [I understand that
judith may not be able to parse that last sentence. ;-)]
Given that I've never heard of Cyclecraft being quoted in other cases
I can't.
When are you going to learn that, you not knowing of something, or you
not beleiving something or even you not having heard of something does
not mean that it hasn't happened or doesn't exist?

However, as you say that you have heard of other cases where
it has been quoted and favoured - perhaps you could give us their
details
Find it yourself.


Yet another who is not familiar with usenet common practice.

Oh I don't know, I've been "here" for fourteen years and I think I know
a troll when I see one.

Seems
reasonable if someone states something as a fact that they can back it
up when asked.

It would be for a normal person, you aren't you're a troll.

Perhaps it is just URC where this practice is not followed.
No it's only when dealing with trolls

There certainly seems to be a number of people who will state
something - but then when asked just cannot back it up.

Or can't be bothered doing your work for you?

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:53:55 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:44:31 +0100,
Marc wrote:

It tends to make a mess of a cars rear bumper if you accelerate and
don't go around them.

:-)

Now it suddenly all makes sense. Judith hasn't yet worked out that if
you try to put two vehicles in the same place at the same time it tends
to make a mess.

That's why she thought it was Jim Chisholm's fault. And that's why she
thought my near miss was my fault. Obviously the car and bicycle should
just pass though each other. It's only these bloody stubborn cyclists
who are making it all go wrong.


Tim.


You're a laugh a minute.

I like the bit where you said : "I didn't notice this at all when I
was cycling" - were you not paying attention?

Come on tell us again how you think it's OK to ignore some aspects of
the Highway Code as a matter of course - do you ignore much of it?

Oh - you never answered that question about the roadworthiness of your
bike:

It's not obvious in the clip but I also braked very hard there to avoid
a collision - so hard, infact that the bike started to fold up
underneath me. I only needed to brake for about half a second.

Is the cycle (is it a cycle?) structurally sound? Did you knock it up
yourself?

Perhaps there should be the equivalent of MOTs for bikes and
competency tests for cyclists.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:38:28 +0100, Marc
wrote:

snip

Until your simplistic
but touchingly naive thought processes are brought up to speed I think
you would be better off with something like the ladybird book of roadlaw.



Is that another name for Cyclecraft - I'll try and have a look for it
over the weekend.

judith wrote:

I suggest that you then give your own apologies.

The only thing I am sorry about is getting drawn into a "debate" with a
known and self confessed troll.
I therefore apologies to all regular users of URC (that does not include
judith).


Martin.

Martin wrote:

judith wrote:

I suggest that you then give your own apologies.

The only thing I am sorry about is getting drawn into a "debate" with a
known and self confessed troll.
I therefore apologies to all regular users of URC #
No problem, but don't let it stop you making a mockery of it, there is
nothing better than a troll roasting slowly over the flames of mockery.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, judithsmith wrote:

Judith, two things:

Number one: along with saying stupid things and having double
standards (I note you still demand everyone else provides cast-iron
cites for everything, but you yourself still neglect to, for example,
support your assertion that anyone has ever been prosecuted only for
failing to comply with the HC), there is one nearly-infallible
indicator of a troll:

they frequently change their posting address to avoid filters and
killfiles.


Oh - you never answered that question about the roadworthiness of your
bike:

It's not obvious in the clip but I also braked very hard there to avoid
a collision - so hard, infact that the bike started to fold up
underneath me. I only needed to brake for about half a second.

Is the cycle (is it a cycle?) structurally sound? Did you knock it up
yourself?

Number two: you really have reached the point where just about
everything you say reveals deep, deep ignorance about the subject on
which you are pontificating. I won't be providing any cites for the
following statement, any spoon-feeding, or any further help to try and
get this into your consciousness. It is advice offered simply and
genuinely to help you avoid making yourself look even more of an arse.

To many regular and knowledgeable cyclists, you just made yourself
look ignorant again. Your credibility (such as it is) will be less
damaged if you drop this line of debate now.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Judith" wrote in message
...
So "Filtering is passing stationary traffic in the space between the
lanes." is incorrect.

and "Filtering is passing through spaces between traffic." - even if
you are crossing lanes is correct

Not wishing to rock the boat Judith, but IMHO the traffic doesn't even have
to be stationary! Having just sat a motorcycle assessment under police
guidance(most forces offer such free tests) filtering is encouraged,
apparently you can filter through traffic, anything up to 20% of road speed
over the filtered traffic without drawing attention from plod, i.e THE LAW!
This means 6mph over the vehicle in front speed(up to the posted limit{which
doesn't apply to cycles}) in urban areas, about 15mph on motorways, etc. Off
course filtering should only be applied when wider vehicles cannot move at
posted limits due to congestion, or words to that effect.
These figures are NOT written down in law, these are figures used by people
that police our roads.
Before you (Judith) starting querying my figures, check other
forums/newsgroups on the general usage of such figures. I personally don't
filter as such on a motorbike as other road users, I find, tend to change
lanes without checking for filterers, why would they?


--
!Speedy Gonzales!

Remove the SPAMTRAP to reply