Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 25, 2020 00:25

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 09:43 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
I guess that's the problem: for every small hotelier rubbing his hands in glee, there's someone running a non-tourist business getting peed off.

I must admit if they ran something like that round here in the week, my firm would be in some trouble. Though we've got lots of roads round here we can use instead. Without having looked at the area this took place, diversionary routes may not be possible in remote Scotland.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 11:44 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
Johnnytheboy wrote:
I guess that's the problem: for every small hotelier rubbing his hands in glee, there's someone running a non-tourist business getting peed off.

I must admit if they ran something like that round here in the week, my firm would be in some trouble. Though we've got lots of roads round here we can use instead. Without having looked at the area this took place, diversionary routes may not be possible in remote Scotland.


hmmmm not sure about the non tourist businesses getting peed off.... the event was on a sunday when many such businesses wouldnt be running ? the route & closures were are advertised (athough even with our local half marathon it amazes me how little interest residents on the route pay to the mail drops, local radio & newspapare announcements, they still manage to whine in the same paper however after they were delayed 5minutes or diverted an extra 1/2mile) and roads closed on a rolling basis, it sounds like diversionary routes would have been quite a long way round, as far as i've read the most road sections were closed for 3hrs with some (presumably later sections) being 4hrs.

can't be that difficult to plan around that surely ?

like the IMUK stuff i expect its other tourist dependant businesses which have little appeal to cyclist types that would suffer most.

anyway i suspect we're debating minutiae here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 20:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
ed_m wrote:
Johnnytheboy wrote:
I guess that's the problem: for every small hotelier rubbing his hands in glee, there's someone running a non-tourist business getting peed off.

I must admit if they ran something like that round here in the week, my firm would be in some trouble. Though we've got lots of roads round here we can use instead. Without having looked at the area this took place, diversionary routes may not be possible in remote Scotland.


hmmmm not sure about the non tourist businesses getting peed off.... the event was on a sunday when many such businesses wouldnt be running ?


Outdoor pursuits/kilt/and some obvious tourist tat shops might open up. This is an annual event. I understand the Mad Cat's' eldest suffered a puncture in this event. :roll:

Quote:
the route & closures were are advertised (athough even with our local half marathon it amazes me how little interest residents on the route pay to the mail drops, local radio & newspapare announcements, they still manage to whine in the same paper however after they were delayed 5minutes or diverted an extra 1/2mile) and roads closed on a rolling basis, it sounds like diversionary routes would have been quite a long way round, as far as i've read the most road sections were closed for 3hrs with some (presumably later sections) being 4hrs.



"Team Swiss" noted this when they took time off to cheer the ToB en route. Those at the set off and finish lines said more turned out to spur on the cyclists . .. but it was "scant" compared to golf/rally/race/horse meet/marathon and other meets :banghead: It may spark a few more spectators after the Olympic success? But somehow that was more "end of the season" and soon "forgotten" unfortunately. :roll: I think those in charge should advertise and market the sport much better. :popcorn:

Quote:
can't be that difficult to plan around that surely ?

like the IMUK stuff i expect its other tourist dependant businesses which have little appeal to cyclist types that would suffer most.

anyway i suspect we're debating minutiae here.



No. Not hard. ToB passes through our patch on one stage this year. I think we are ready and able to make sure it's smooth running.

No excuse though for sabotaging the race though. Evil b:censored:ds :furious:

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 16:38 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
Steve wrote:
hairyben wrote:
What interests me is the connection you've made between someone doing bad things to cyclists and out of all the conjecture we could arrive at about the guilty party, who is is, what he does, how he thinks and why, you specifically chose "motorist".

It's just something that intrigues me about the current trend of pitting road users against each other and the popular demonisation of certain parties and subsequent counter-demonisation, rather than working out a cohesive road-sharing plan, and the psychology that results in, both in his actions and your comments, rather than an attempt to have a pop at you BTW. I made the same assumptions myself.

In which case I may not have been clear enough.

I wasn't trying to make the connection to how he used the roads (but making that connection was a necessary evil), I was merely commenting about what punishment he should get if he is.

If all is as I suspect then I am hoping for a stiff and deliciously ironic penalty (which applies to motorists only):

He was against the road closure >> he should experience 'road closures' to the fullest extent the law can apply :)


While that may seem to some extent a "just" punishment, denying someone their driving licence as "punishment" for anything other than driving-related offences sets a dangerous autocratic precedent and has been discussed on here before I believe as the powers that be have contemplated awarding themselves just such powers... The right to hold a driving licence should be based on nothing more than ones ability to responsibly use a motor vehicle.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 18:01 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
hairyben wrote:
The right to hold a driving licence should be based on nothing more than ones ability to responsibly use a motor vehicle.

So what if it transpired the offender dropped the tacs from a motor vehicle (I suspect this was the case), would I be right in assuming you wouldn't have a problem with denying them their driving licence?

hairyben wrote:
While that may seem to some extent a "just" punishment, denying someone their driving licence as "punishment" for anything other than driving-related offences sets a dangerous autocratic precedent

This is a driving related offence: the road was made dangerous (or at the very least: difficult) for other road users. For me, using a motor vehicle as their means doesn't matter, but it would reinforce the point.

Failing that, only jail will do IMO.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 18:34 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
Steve wrote:
hairyben wrote:
The right to hold a driving licence should be based on nothing more than ones ability to responsibly use a motor vehicle.

So what if it transpired the offender dropped the tacs from a motor vehicle (I suspect this was the case), would I be right in assuming you wouldn't have a problem with denying them their driving licence?


Only if dropping the tacks from a moving vehicle compromised his ability to control the vehicle unacceptably, and if so, that would have to be witnessed or recorded, in line with procedure for other motoring offences.

Steve wrote:
hairyben wrote:
While that may seem to some extent a "just" punishment, denying someone their driving licence as "punishment" for anything other than driving-related offences sets a dangerous autocratic precedent

This is a driving related offence: the road was made dangerous (or at the very least: difficult) for other road users. For me, using a motor vehicle as their means doesn't matter, but it would reinforce the point.

Failing that, only jail will do IMO.


It's a "Driving related" offence in so far as it took place somewhere people drive. If he beat someone up in the road is that also a driving related offence?

You're maybe viewing the driving licence as some sort of priviledge to be revoked for bad behaviour. I see it as licence to drive; authority to use a motor vehicle based on demonstrating the required skill level and adherence to the highway code and other relevant laws when doing so. You speculate that he may have thrown the tacks from a moving vehicle- I guess that would demonstrate "willfull endangerment of other road users while driving a vehicle", personally I'd still say they were separate entities, ie occurred at the same time but not directly related to each other- but I wouldn't argue the point. (get my point, heh)

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 19:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Steve wrote:
hairyben wrote:
The right to hold a driving licence should be based on nothing more than ones ability to responsibly use a motor vehicle.

So what if it transpired the offender dropped the tacs from a motor vehicle (I suspect this was the case), would I be right in assuming you wouldn't have a problem with denying them their driving licence?


What if another driver had driven down that road directly after them and had the punctures and potential accident? I should refrain from eating so much :popcorn: at times.




Quote:
hairyben wrote:
While that may seem to some extent a "just" punishment, denying someone their driving licence as "punishment" for anything other than driving-related offences sets a dangerous autocratic precedent

This is a driving related offence: the road was made dangerous (or at the very least: difficult) for other road users. For me, using a motor vehicle as their means doesn't matter, but it would reinforce the point.

Failing that, only jail will do IMO.

Indeed. If they were miffed at the road closure and a very temporary disruption - then there are other ways of complaining about it. Personally - do not see the gripe. . Rolling road block would have been the norm. Should not have been a problem especially as an annual event. :roll:

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 19:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
hairyben IN answer to Steve wrote:
So what if it transpired the offender dropped the tacs from a motor vehicle (I suspect this was the case), would I be right in assuming you wouldn't have a problem with denying them their driving licence?


Only if dropping the tacks from a moving vehicle compromised his ability to control the vehicle unacceptably, and if so, that would have to be witnessed or recorded, in line with procedure for other motoring offences.[/quote]


I think our colleagues are satisfied that some car driver and passengers did this.

Steve wrote:
hairyben wrote:
While that may seem to some extent a "just" punishment, denying someone their driving licence as "punishment" for anything other than driving-related offences sets a dangerous autocratic precedent

This is a driving related offence: the road was made dangerous (or at the very least: difficult) for other road users. For me, using a motor vehicle as their means doesn't matter, but it would reinforce the point.

Failing that, only jail will do IMO.


It's a "Driving related" offence in so far as it took place somewhere people drive. If he beat someone up in the road is that also a driving related offence?
[/quote]


No. We'd use GBH . aggravated assault . breach of peace .. and/or some others if they applied.

Quote:
You're maybe viewing the driving licence as some sort of priviledge to be revoked for bad behaviour. I see it as licence to drive; authority to use a motor vehicle based on demonstrating the required skill level and adherence to the highway code and other relevant laws when doing so. You speculate that he may have thrown the tacks from a moving vehicle- I guess that would demonstrate "willfull endangerment of other road users while driving a vehicle", personally I'd still say they were separate entities, ie occurred at the same time but not directly related to each other- but I wouldn't argue the point. (get my point, heh)



Sadly - we see holding a driving licence as a serious privilege and courts can sanction accordingly. I am not saying I agree with this 100% 0 but that it happens and just sometimes to often in real cass ? - I would concur with the court's decision there :bunker: :bunker: :bunker:

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 20:57 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
nothing substantiated but:

there is a rumour that the tacks were dropped by a rogue cyclist joining one of the front groups for a short period of time.
i beleive the offending chap lives a shortish distance from the road.
i also heard a rumour than one of the supporting ambulances suffered a puncture :shock: .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 21:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
hairyben wrote:
Only if dropping the tacks from a moving vehicle compromised his ability to control the vehicle unacceptably, and if so, that would have to be witnessed or recorded, in line with procedure for other motoring offences.

But doesn't this go against the premise of 'responsible use of a motor vehicle'?

hairyben wrote:
It's a "Driving related" offence in so far as it took place somewhere people drive. If he beat someone up in the road is that also a driving related offence?

Nope. The offender acted, with the direct intent, to make the road unusable for other road users - he made the road a dangerous place to be; assaulting someone up on a road is a very different intent and has a different outcome.

hairyben wrote:
You're maybe viewing the driving licence as some sort of priviledge to be revoked for bad behaviour.

Again no.
If the offender cannot interact with other road users in a considerate manner, then he shouldn't be allowed to hold a licence to interact with them at all whilst piloting an energetic machine.

hairyben wrote:
I see it as licence to drive; authority to use a motor vehicle based on demonstrating the required skill level and adherence to the highway code and other relevant laws when doing so.

What about consideration? Isn't attitude important? aren't these the critical factors our offender is so sorely lacking.
If making a road unusable or unsafe isn't a traffic offence then what exactly is it?

hairyben wrote:
You speculate that he may have thrown the tacks from a moving vehicle- I guess that would demonstrate "willfull endangerment of other road users while driving a vehicle", personally I'd still say they were separate entities, ie occurred at the same time but not directly related to each other- but I wouldn't argue the point. (get my point, heh)

Groan :)

Can someone pass a driving test even if they threw tacs out of their window (but still maintained proper control)?

You bring up good points, but I still believe such a penalty would be just (and beautifully poetic).
It doesn't matter anyway, I believe the precedent you fear has already been set, for offences completely unrelated to any form of, or by-product of, road use. (I see IG just beat me to that point)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.222s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]