Brighton cyclist ordered to pay £1,000 for ignoring one-way sign

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:55:34 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 09/01/2013 23:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:


And it's best to check for pigs before driving the wrong way - I did it
every working day for two years to avoid a queue in roadworks. Got
nicked precisely 0 times. I only had 3 occurrences of another drive
shaking his fist.


Easy to say but sometimes the police can be difficult to spot. I didn't
manage it once and got stopped with extreme prejudice.

Police are very easy to spot, they stick out like a sore thumb. Covertness ain't their strongpoint.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Doctor: "Ask the accident victim his name so we can notify his family."
Nurse: "I did! He said his family already knows his name."

On 10/01/2013 20:15, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:55:34 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 09/01/2013 23:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:


And it's best to check for pigs before driving the wrong way - I did it
every working day for two years to avoid a queue in roadworks. Got
nicked precisely 0 times. I only had 3 occurrences of another drive
shaking his fist.


Easy to say but sometimes the police can be difficult to spot. I didn't
manage it once and got stopped with extreme prejudice.

Police are very easy to spot, they stick out like a sore thumb.
Covertness ain't their strongpoint.


Mind you I saw a copper last night with a hidden police car and a speed
gun checking the traffic coming the other way. Perhaps it was just
surveillance. The presence of a cop car would have slowed the traffic.
Maybe they will be back to start nicking later.

On 10/01/2013 19:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 17:29, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 13:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

A car going the wrong way can cause a nasty accident. A bicycle won't.

It might, depending on the evasive action drivers have to take.

It would take a brave cyclist to cycle in such a way that they rely on
drivers crashing into something else rather than hit them.

Is "brave" the right word?

"Stupid" would be better.

Drivers often overtake on blind stretches of road, even if there are
double white lines. If something was to come the other way, I suspect
the driver would sacrifice the cyclist rather then risk a head-on.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

To be honest, if any of my family were in such a position, I hope they
would choose to survive. Wouldn't you want your family member - or even
yourself - to be the one to survive?


If *you* or *your family* was the cyclist, it might be better if the
driver behind chose a safe and sensible place to pass.

On 10/01/2013 21:11, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 10/01/2013 19:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 17:29, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 13:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

A car going the wrong way can cause a nasty accident. A bicycle
won't.

It might, depending on the evasive action drivers have to take.

It would take a brave cyclist to cycle in such a way that they rely on
drivers crashing into something else rather than hit them.

Is "brave" the right word?

"Stupid" would be better.

Drivers often overtake on blind stretches of road, even if there are
double white lines. If something was to come the other way, I suspect
the driver would sacrifice the cyclist rather then risk a head-on.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

To be honest, if any of my family were in such a position, I hope they
would choose to survive. Wouldn't you want your family member - or even
yourself - to be the one to survive?


If *you* or *your family* was the cyclist, it might be better if the
driver behind chose a safe and sensible place to pass.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:08:09 -0000, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 20:15, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:55:34 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 09/01/2013 23:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:


And it's best to check for pigs before driving the wrong way - I did it
every working day for two years to avoid a queue in roadworks. Got
nicked precisely 0 times. I only had 3 occurrences of another drive
shaking his fist.


Easy to say but sometimes the police can be difficult to spot. I didn't
manage it once and got stopped with extreme prejudice.

Police are very easy to spot, they stick out like a sore thumb.
Covertness ain't their strongpoint.


Mind you I saw a copper last night with a hidden police car and a speed
gun checking the traffic coming the other way. Perhaps it was just
surveillance. The presence of a cop car would have slowed the traffic.
Maybe they will be back to start nicking later.

GATSOs have to be visible by law, so why should mobile traps be any different?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Sex without love is merely healthy exercise.

On 10/01/2013 21:23, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:08:09 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 10/01/2013 20:15, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:55:34 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 09/01/2013 23:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:


And it's best to check for pigs before driving the wrong way - I
did it
every working day for two years to avoid a queue in roadworks. Got
nicked precisely 0 times. I only had 3 occurrences of another drive
shaking his fist.


Easy to say but sometimes the police can be difficult to spot. I didn't
manage it once and got stopped with extreme prejudice.

Police are very easy to spot, they stick out like a sore thumb.
Covertness ain't their strongpoint.


Mind you I saw a copper last night with a hidden police car and a speed
gun checking the traffic coming the other way. Perhaps it was just
surveillance. The presence of a cop car would have slowed the traffic.
Maybe they will be back to start nicking later.

GATSOs have to be visible by law, so why should mobile traps be any
different?

Mobile speed trap drivers are under strict instruction to operate only
from pre-arranged spots where they *can* be seen. Some county councils
issue daily reports of where the vans will be.

On Jan 10, 9:21*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 21:11, Simon Weissel wrote:









On 10/01/2013 19:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 17:29, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 13:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

A car going the wrong way can cause a nasty accident. *A bicycle
won't.

It might, depending on the evasive action drivers have to take.

It would take a brave cyclist to cycle in such a way that they rely on
drivers crashing into something else rather than hit them.

Is "brave" the right word?

"Stupid" would be better.

Drivers often overtake on blind stretches of road, even if there are
double white lines. If something was to come the other way, I suspect
the driver would sacrifice the cyclist rather then risk a head-on.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

To be honest, if any of my family were in such a position, I hope they
would choose to survive. Wouldn't you want your family member - or even
yourself - to be the one to survive?

If *you* or *your family* was the cyclist, it might be better if the
driver behind chose a safe and sensible place to pass.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

You don't value your family members?

On 10/01/2013 21:34, Squashme wrote:
On Jan 10, 9:21 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 21:11, Simon Weissel wrote:









On 10/01/2013 19:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 17:29, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 13:39, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

A car going the wrong way can cause a nasty accident. A bicycle
won't.

It might, depending on the evasive action drivers have to take.

It would take a brave cyclist to cycle in such a way that they rely on
drivers crashing into something else rather than hit them.

Is "brave" the right word?

"Stupid" would be better.

Drivers often overtake on blind stretches of road, even if there are
double white lines. If something was to come the other way, I suspect
the driver would sacrifice the cyclist rather then risk a head-on.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

To be honest, if any of my family were in such a position, I hope they
would choose to survive. Wouldn't you want your family member - or even
yourself - to be the one to survive?

If *you* or *your family* was the cyclist, it might be better if the
driver behind chose a safe and sensible place to pass.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

You don't value your family members?

I certainly do.

OTOH, I do not value trite "advice" very highly.

On 10/01/2013 21:21, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 21:11, Simon Weissel wrote:


If *you* or *your family* was the cyclist, it might be better if the
driver behind chose a safe and sensible place to pass.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

Who is this "Us"?

On 10/01/2013 21:36, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 10/01/2013 21:21, JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2013 21:11, Simon Weissel wrote:

If *you* or *your family* was the cyclist, it might be better if the
driver behind chose a safe and sensible place to pass.

I dare say you're right on that, though it tells us nothing of any real
value.

Who is this "Us"?

Anyone who would derive an accurate amount of useful information from
your observation.