Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:00

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 09:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
"BBC wrote:

Cyclists break the law and ride anti-socially because the Highway Code rules are set against them, a national cyclists' organisation has claimed.

CTC says cyclists flout some of the rules, such as turning left on a red light, as it helps them to stay safe.

It has called for the code to be re-written to protect cyclists.

Motoring organisation the AA said the behaviour of some cyclists meant in effect there were "two tribes" at war on the roads.


Indeed. Some cyclists behave in a very anti-social manner. We came across a wobbler yesterday.. on a mobile phone :yikes: He was oblivious to the woman crossing the road at the crossing. The lights were on red. All the cars were stopped. He just ignored the situation. :banghead:


Quote:
One proposal is to introduce an advanced green stage at a junction which allows cyclists to get away before motorists.

They could be allowed turn left on a red light.



A filter and a GIVE WAY marking exist on many roads already :popcorn: This means giving way and stopping to on-coming traffic. Unfortunately to allow this a T junctions would mean that the cyclist will either ride into the path on on-coming traffic or hit the pedestrians who might be already crossing the road :popcorn:


Quote:
Another proposal is to allow them to ignore instructions to stop at red on a pedestrian crossing, as they say being allowed to cross some red lights is safer.


It is NOT safer for the pedestrian. The pedestrian has RIGHTS and the RIGHT to cross a road safely when they use these crossings. To demand this is arrogant CTC nonsense.

Quote:
Breaking rules

Chris Peck, of CTC, said: "Most cyclists obey the rules of the road, there is only a minority that cycle anti-socially, like breaking red lights and cycle on pavements but we have to realise why they are doing this.

"It's because the rules of the road are not set up for cyclists, the width of the roads, the layout of the roads, even cycle routes are not designed with the cyclists in mind, they are designed to keep cyclists off the road and mingle them with pedestrians."



I heard him saying this on the BBC News earlier this morning. He sounded like a spotty yoof with an attitude problem.

The CTC claims the cyclists are pedestrians on wheels when it suits them to justify cycling on pavements and ignoring red lights. We have the gem of the quote from this same bloke on file :popcorn:

They then say they want to be part of the traffic.

Well .. being "part of the traffic" means abiding by the same rules as the rest of the traffic .. such as stopping at reds.. slowing down to stop for pedestrians.. riding the right way along one-way streets and carriageways. Not riding whilst using a hands held device.. not riding whilst drunk/drugged or fatigued.. :banghead:

We agree that cycle lanes are usually poorly engineered .. paint jobs to meet some target which proclaims the local borough to be "the greeniest of all". It does not. These lanes need to be better and not paint for the sake of it. :banghead: We agree that there should be changing facilities at work or a communal one at the industrial parks to allow the freshen up and change into work-a-day clothes.

But where a decent cycling route does exist.. this same CTC moans that they are being segregated and not "part of the traffic". When they are not built.. they moan about this too.


Difficult to take them seriously because this just makes them come across as half baked pretzel :popcorn:


Quote:
Cycling is being promoted in English cities such as Bristol, with the government providing £140m of funding.

We do see cyclists just not obeying the rules of the road, also we get motorists doing things that the shouldn't so maybe we need to clarify the rules for all

Edmund King
AA

The rules are set to be changed at a local level, in London councils will soon get new powers to protect and prosecute cyclists.

Nick Lester, of the Association of London Governments, said: "We have got two powers, the first is to enable advance stop lines to be enforced to give cyclists the benefit at traffic signals.

"The second is better powers to control reckless footway cycling where cyclists can - and it's only a minority of cyclists - cause fear amongst pedestrians."


Exactly. I support this action to control these pests in the city centres. I needed stitches. I was lucky it missed an artery when one such idiot shoved me into a Transco trench. :furious:

Pedestrians have the right to walk without being intimidated by these louts in lycra. This type ride badly. They blame everyone else for their accidents. They would be just as scary if and when driving to be honest.


:popcorn:

Quote:
Edmund King, of the AA, said at times it appeared there were two tribes at war on the roads.

He said: "We do see cyclists just not obeying the rules of the road jumping red lights, one way streets, also we get motorists doing things that they shouldn't so maybe we need to clarify the rules for all."



Indeed. We start with insisting all road users are trained in C O A S T skills.. and that cyclists like drivers meet a basic standard required by law before riding out in busy town centres. BIKEABILITY LEVL THREE should be compulsory for all. :wink:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
So if cyclists break the rules of the road, we need to understand why and change those rules to accommodate them. How does this chap feel about motorists who break speed limits?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:48 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Quote:
Contact Us



National Office
CTC National Office
Address: CTC, Parklands, Railton Rd, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9JX
Tel : 0844 736 8450 (Direct line 01483 238 337)
Fax : 0844 736 8454 (Direct line (01483 237 051)
Email : cycling@ctc.org.uk


Send them a message, I have

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 13:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Do tell.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 15:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
So if cyclists break the rules of the road, we need to understand why and change those rules to accommodate them. How does this chap feel about motorists who break speed limits?


Imagine he'll say that cyclists break rules such as no pavement cycling or turning left on a red for saftey, but you couldn't argue this for people who speed.

I don't for a second think that an urban cyclist that rides through a junction while the light is on red is doing it for safety though, possibly at a stretch you might get me to consider pavement cycling is done for saftey.

I think they're primarily performed for a perceived perception of expediency, same as speeding.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 18:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
I heard bits of this on the wireless this morning, but it struck me how selective these cycling extremists are with which bits of the Higway Code they choose to obey. They seemed to me to be saying they want more rules which suited them while continually ignoring the ones that don't suit them.

As far as I am concerned they can have their free for all if they want, however if they hurt anyone or damage anyones property they must take responsibility.

The extremist cyclists end up making it worse for the ones that use the road properly because powered road users assume that that person on that bike is automaticly an idiot so give them a hard time. That behaviour them and us cycle needs breaking.

I am starting to use my new-secondhand £20 bike to go to work and don't want people swearing at me.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 19:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
weepej wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
So if cyclists break the rules of the road, we need to understand why and change those rules to accommodate them. How does this chap feel about motorists who break speed limits?


Imagine he'll say that cyclists break rules such as no pavement cycling or turning left on a red for saftey, but you couldn't argue this for people who speed.

I don't for a second think that an urban cyclist that rides through a junction while the light is on red is doing it for safety though, possibly at a stretch you might get me to consider pavement cycling is done for saftey.

I think they're primarily performed for a perceived perception of expediency, same as speeding.



No pavement cycling is "for safety". :roll:


Cyclists want to be part of the traffic. Fine ./. No problem. But they obey the same rules as the rest of the traffic in that case - which means they obey and are obligated to obey the 20 mph on the residentials the same as the motorised vehicle user.

Now cyclists think they are "exempt from speeding".

Well .. I have news for them. We can usually find a law to prosecute under.. antisocial.. breaches of peace.. and we can penalty point a ghost licence or even penalty point their existing licence if certain criteria are met. This is the same legal criteria which was used to ban an OAP for warning drivers of a speed trap ahead :wink:

These people need not think they are "above the law or exempt" because of a green flag or some belief they are "saving the planet". If their behaviour causes a nuisance to another - we and the CPS can find another law to hammer them on.


But sooner or later .. as more of us use a bicycle because of soaring commuting overheads - legislation will be imposed on "health and safety grounds" - but really to plug the tax gap on motoring indirect taxation :wink:

Expect compulsory insurance.. new proficency test standard.. registration.. and rules added to the Highway Code.. but certainly not the ones the CTC want.. :popcorn:

There is nothing certain in life .. apart from two things


1. We all die some time.

2. We all pay taxes on every conceivable item .. - even on death. The Swiss and Austrians are even taxed on the pet fish and have to pay a "church tax" :popcorn:


I woulld have a good hard think .. CTC. Be careful of what you wish for. The "wish genie" has a nasty habit of making the wish list not quite as envisaged :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 19:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
In Gear wrote:
No pavement cycling is "for safety". :roll:



No, I don't believe it's safe to ride on the pavement either, I'm not speaking for myself.

However, when you see junctions like this, where cars can be seen going at incedible speeds (when it's not chock full of them bumper to bumper), its no wonder why some choose to: -

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en ... iwloc=addr

Don't support it, in my book if you want to be on the pavement you should walk your bike (unless it's a shared pavement).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 19:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
adam.L wrote:
The extremist cyclists end up making it worse for the ones that use the road properly because powered road users assume that that person on that bike is automaticly an idiot so give them a hard time.



I don't buy that. The anti cycle brigade might use idiots on cycles to have a pop at normal people on cycles, but it would only take one or two idiots on which to leverage their predjudices.

Just like I don't like seeing some people tar all motorists with the same brush I can't stand seeing other people tarring all cyclists with the same brush.

Whatever you say, if I tell somebody I'm a "cyclist" and they assume I'm an anti social red light jumping loon, that's predjudice and it needs to be stamped on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 20:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
weepej wrote:
adam.L wrote:
The extremist cyclists end up making it worse for the ones that use the road properly because powered road users assume that that person on that bike is automaticly an idiot so give them a hard time.



I don't buy that. The anti cycle brigade might use idiots on cycles to have a pop at normal people on cycles, but it would only take one or two idiots on which to leverage their predjudices.

Just like I don't like seeing some people tar all motorists with the same brush I can't stand seeing other people tarring all cyclists with the same brush.



Unfortunately for all of us... a certain cycling forum with a handful of complete morons feed two predudices - both serious

:furious:

1. They make the myth that cycling is "dangerous" more or less indelible in the mind set of many parents and youngsters.

2. They create the image that the lycra clad lout prevails and rules the urban roads.

:furious:

We see the odd Mr "A Bit Cross" about a ping on here .. but by and large - most here support COAST and a safety led approach by which we all negotiate and share the roads with each other.


Unfortunately the forum in question bore the name of a magazine. It was a window. When people "window shopped" and read some rather insane comment which seemed to encourage kicking and vandalising cars.. along with justifying running reds and cycling on pavements... it turned off a good many. :popcorn; and fed those who

wwepej wrote:
There are some on there who
Whatever you say, if I tell somebody I'm a "cyclist" and they assume I'm an anti social red light jumping loon, that's predjudice and it needs to be stamped on.



But riding the wrong way up a one way is plain daft unless there is a designated lane .. which does operate in some one-way systems already :popcorn: But again .. we are back to the cyclist cycling according to the traffic engineeing and design. :wink;


A left lane filter? We do have these already. The filter lane has a GIVE WAY sign/road markings which means the left turner has to halt and give way to other traffic :wink: The cyclist would still be required to obey these and not move into the path of oncoming traffic causing a nuisance to another road user :popcorn:

If the CTC are asking for the laws to be changed so that they do not get prosecuted .. I think that they are farting into a gale
force wind.

As for a busy junction - all road users need to exercise care and COAST. :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:13 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Quote:
and we can penalty point a ghost licence or even penalty point their existing licence if certain criteria are met.

What criteria are those and under which act?

Some years ago I was prosecuted for cycling past a red light and the magistrate tried to award me three points. Both my solicitor and the clerk told him that wasn't an option and he had to withdraw.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 21:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
The law was recently changed to allow endorsement for non motoring offences.

A person recently had his licence endorsed for standing near the road with a placard warning of a speed camera ahead.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 08:45 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Homer wrote:
The law was recently changed to allow endorsement for non motoring offences.

A person recently had his licence endorsed for standing near the road with a placard warning of a speed camera ahead.


To be pedantic he was disqualified from driving rather than having his licence endorsed. That case really does show that hollowness of the safety camera concept. If the purpose of the cameras is to discourage motorists from exceeding the speed limit the placard can only reinforce the message. Could the cameras have some other, secret, purpose?

The idea of endorsement for non motoring offences offends against natural justice. It sets up a two tier system of punishment, more severe for motorists than for non-motorists. And how far does it extend. Could I have my driving licence endorsed for shoplifting, or failing to do my tax return?

I can't find any reference on the web about endorsement for cycling offences. The tariff table on Direct.gov shows dangerous and careless cycling to be punishable only a fine, not by endorsement or custody. Can you point me at an axplanation of the new legislation

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 15:06 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
dcbwhaley wrote:
Homer wrote:
The law was recently changed to allow endorsement for non motoring offences.

A person recently had his licence endorsed for standing near the road with a placard warning of a speed camera ahead.


To be pedantic he was disqualified from driving rather than having his licence endorsed. That case really does show that hollowness of the safety camera concept. If the purpose of the cameras is to discourage motorists from exceeding the speed limit the placard can only reinforce the message. Could the cameras have some other, secret, purpose?

The idea of endorsement for non motoring offences offends against natural justice. It sets up a two tier system of punishment, more severe for motorists than for non-motorists. And how far does it extend. Could I have my driving licence endorsed for shoplifting, or failing to do my tax return?

I can't find any reference on the web about endorsement for cycling offences. The tariff table on Direct.gov shows dangerous and careless cycling to be punishable only a fine, not by endorsement or custody. Can you point me at an axplanation of the new legislation



Under a truck load of legistation passed by the current government - failure to pay CSA their dues can result in the loss of a driving licence. :roll: In theory - you could have a licence endorsed or suspended for being a serial shoplifer or failing to pay your taxes under the 2002 Public Order Acts and various amendments.

In theory a dangerous cyclist can be a potentially lethal driver .. so the DVLA have the power to make up a ghost licence same as they do for the unlicenced thugs we convict. A licence is produced by the DVLA bearing the endorsement BA10/BA30 which are the endorsements for "driving whilst disqualified /attempting to drive whilst disqualified by a court of law" :popcorn: They can also further endorse these "licences" with the AC10/AC20/AC30 codes if the offences involved failing to stop after an accident/failing to report accident or caused an accident :popcorn: respectively.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 21:38 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Quote:
In theory a dangerous cyclist can be a potentially lethal driver .. so the DVLA have the power to make up a ghost licence same as they do for the unlicenced thugs we convict. A licence is produced by the DVLA bearing the endorsement BA10/BA30 which are the endorsements for "driving whilst disqualified /attempting to drive whilst disqualified by a court of la


Hang on. You are saying that a cyclist convicted of dangerous or careless cycling can have his driving licence endorsed with the code for "driving whilst disqualified"? If that is the case then Mr Bumble was correct and the law is an ass.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
In theory a dangerous cyclist can be a potentially lethal driver .. so the DVLA have the power to make up a ghost licence same as they do for the unlicenced thugs we convict. A licence is produced by the DVLA bearing the endorsement BA10/BA30 which are the endorsements for "driving whilst disqualified /attempting to drive whilst disqualified by a court of la


Hang on. You are saying that a cyclist convicted of dangerous or careless cycling can have his driving licence endorsed with the code for "driving whilst disqualified"? If that is the case then Mr Bumble was correct and the law is an ass.



The MS (miscellaneous codes) take care of those :wink: MS60 woould be the one as it covers "offences not covered by the other codes" :popcorn: LC codes tell us about "licence offences".

The MS codes are just as serious as the rest .. by the way :popcorn: They cover

leaving the vehicle parked up dangerously/carelessly/unlawful pillion riding/play street offences/driving with poor eyesight/failing to take eyesight test/


UT50 = driving a stolen car (Unauthorised Taking :wink:)

A cyclist can have a licence/ghost licence endorsed with the following for contravening pedestrian crossings

PC10/PC20 (as this covers "contravening ped crossing regs in or on a moving vehicle - and since cyclists claim to be part of the traffic .. the mags can give them heir wish as their command on this :lol:

TS cover TRAFFIC signal/road marking /command of police :stop: offences and lolly folk. Cyclists can also have licences or ghost licences endorsed to reflect these offences as well :wink:

We have around 63 codes which are used to endorse a licence and tell us what you did in the past .. and more get created as laws change :popcorn:

Those who fail to identify a driver when they get a NIP through the post would get their licence endorsed with MS90 (failure to give details of a driver)

MS50 on a licence woiuld tell us the driver has "previous" for "motor racing on the highway" whilst DD40 - tells us of a conviction for "dangerous driving.

SP = Speed limit offences and insurers do not necessarily load for SP30 these days :popcorn:


HOWEVER, I recall some stupidity whereby a certain Speed Pratster seemed oblivious to the difference between these codes and seemed to think it did not matter that his deparmtent made a "clerical error" and endorsed all licences with SP60 coding.

That was actually a very serious mistake to make as it means an "undefined speeding offence" and would have placed insurance premiums at unaffordable levels for some. :furious:


Some folk questioned this. The Pratsters concerned claimed it "made no difference" - on which count they were completely WRONG and way out of order by not correcting the error immediately they were notified :popcorn: . I gaher this was only corrected afet media involvement and outrage. Whether or not insurance hikes were refunded would be another matter. :popcorn:


The licence endorsement codes do matter and each one tells us, insurers, hire car firms something about a driver's history and thus potential risk posed. :popcorn: And that is why the ghost licences are made up for unqualifieds /unlicenced and why cyclists who commit a serious offence when cycling may indeed find this conviction endorsed on their driving licences if their offence was serious enough to warrant such :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:35 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
So a pedestrian could have his "ghost licence" endorsed with a PC10 for, for example, loitering on a pedestrian crossing :twisted:

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 20:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
dcbwhaley wrote:
So a pedestrian could have his "ghost licence" endorsed with a PC10 for, for example, loitering on a pedestrian crossing :twisted:



I wish :hehe: I personally dislike those who "moon walk",..,. or "walk like an Egyptian" :banghead:




But we have "public disorder" offences and ASBOs for that lot :shock: :wink:


It's such fun though - :hehe: - when they recognise me as "that coppah from 'ell" :rotfl: .. the one with the acid lecture and a dose of epsom "iiver"alts :lol:

But yes .. I agree with you that the law can be a right ass most of the time - especially if you apply it to the letter. :wink:

Fortunately for you, we real and professionally minded police officer tend to use common sense (aka .. cough - discretion :wink: or "professional judgement in accordance with our traiining - professional ethics and personal decent-minded morals" ) - and interpret the letter of the law as the law originally intended .. and use the law as a basis for an educational "lecture" which we do try to deliver in a non-confrontational manner in the reality of personal encounters. It just does not "do" to shout or do the "pompous pious farting act" ;wink:

Get pulled here and you are dealt with fairly and if we do decide to prosecute for whatever - the person is still informed about this with due respect. Even if they spit in the face of the officer - we take zero notice but may warn that such action could land them with an additional charge of assaulting an officer or resisting arrest :wink: I have to say that I have chosen to just warn that I could do if so "gobbed one" - but I did and do still allow for anger /pent up fear of outcome when a person behaves in such an uncouth manner. I made a point of warning once only and very politely - yet firmly and I think I inherited my own dad's firm manner .. or perhaps it's my deep choir vocal. cords which give out (what folk tell me as so :popcorn:) that essence of "polite .. firendly but still very firm" (and which I think may have helped me in the interviews up the ladder :lol:)

But we do train all of our staff here that "remaining calm and polite and objective at all times" are the professional requirements and the skills which command respect from the public who do expect this.

Hence - we show an objective discretion to many a misdemeanour .. but all get some "polite words" - and again this builds up the rapport with the the public and it means that they will indeed help us resolve other crimes with the "intelligence" they wil provide for us.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 08:04 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Quote:
Hence - we show an objective discretion to many a misdemeanour .. but all get some "polite words" - and again this builds up the rapport with the the public and it means that they will indeed help us resolve other crimes with the "intelligence" they wil provide for us.


You have almost persuaded me to sell up and move to Co Durham :D

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: CTC Nonsense again..
PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 20:23 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 00:00
Posts: 7
My other half routinely goes past lights whilst they are still on red in central London. She stops to check traffic, and never does it if there is a pedestrian on the junction. She cycles 30 miles a day into and out of London, and is one of the best drivers I know in terms of situational awareness and planning. The reason she does it is that if she waits until amber/green, all the car/lorry/bus drivers race to overtake her / cut her off and force her off the road. This problem's only going to get worse now that Boris is allowing motorbikes to use bus lanes and advance stop lines. She's been told off a few times by the (usually very agressive + shouty) police, but bursting into tears has saved her from getting a ticket so far.

However she's in a minority - I see so many cyclists who are thoughtless, careless and dangerous, wearing dark clothing, giving no clue as to what they're going to do next, doing things like undercutting lorries turning left, and nearly careering into pedestrians. I also see an equal number of drivers who are similarly poor.

The only conclusion I can come to is that quite a lot of the population are hazardous no matter what form of transport they're in control of. :|


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.029s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]