Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Mar 29, 2020 06:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 18:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
There's a lot of rather long posts in this thread so I may have missed if this has been previously mentioned.

One of the judge's previous rulings is being questioned on appeal at the moment. The 159mph copper one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 20:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Hi BC - yep ..

IG mentioned it in passing in one of his repeater posts to Ed. I think Wildy mentioned in a retort to the "robot cop" on PH SP&L who seems to post that "the law is the law" for the "lesser mortals of the public" .. but on the side of the speeding cop. :roll:

(eek - he'll think I'm luring him to post on here... he'd be welcome - quite like the guy and my wife has a lot of fun as he argues with her even when they agree :rotfl: Tis a Punch and Judy show. :lol: . I have every sympathy with von by the way ... I have the same Swiss tanged drawls from the "wild she-cat who must be obeyed" :wink: :lol: )

IG did post at the time the Milton story broke that there are procedures - but that these are "policy to the force in question" and not necessarily standardised. However, he did post that his force does have procedures and a full audit prior to a training session on public roads. The Durham "rebels", apparently, cannot just test out their prestigious powerful and red blooded turbo-charged "animals" without checking it out and getting a thumbs up from the "boss" first. :wink:

As for Ed/Dan - we most sincerely wish him all the best and we hope he does return to post on here. If we do reply to him in a manner he may not appreciate - we would like to reassure him that we would only be doing so to get him to try to "cement his answers under cross examination" and not for any other reason than that.

Not us he has to convince - but the people who matter .. the ones in the court room and it's essential that he gets every fact and potential "trick/trip/discredit" well prepared for.

I hope Ed/Dan does keep an eye on the "speculation" :wink: and does post up to at least keep us informed as to how he's getting on.

If Dan wishes to run anything past us - we will try to run it from the prosecution side for him. This would certainly not mean "not believing his story" - but just getting him prepared for those really nasty "below the belt" questions that prosecutors are wont to ask.

You know - tea and sympathy are one thing and Dan needs to know that people are on his side for his own self -confidence and morale.

However, we need to keep feet firmly on the ground here and accept that world is not as cosy as internet fora where we all share a point of view and get agitated to the point of petty abuse should someone dare disagree or even be perceived as "trolling". Our guy on acf would love to ask Dan the awkward questions but Sam Walker would probably twig him for one of ours at that point :wink:

He plays it safe, fast and cool. He appears to be liked by all there anyway. :wink:

He talks "bike and technique" mostly.. :wink: He just sits on his fingers on any motorist gripe on there. :lol: 8-) :lol:

Certain people :roll: seem to think that people who love cars/motorbikes cannot possibly like bicycles - and nothing can be further than the truth. :wink:

Truly skilled motorists will be competently sympathetic towards any fellow road user.

But Dan/Ed - if you are still lurking - do please keep us updated. We'd like to try to help get you fluent on that witness stand if we can. :)


Please be assured that all the Swiss "rebels", most posters on this and other motoring forum boards are all routing for him and wish him well. He even has the backing of the German "radarfalle" posters :lol:

Lot of support then.. and as said - if we do post the odd perceived unsympathetic "negative" - we only intend it to make Dan think about his replies under "cross". It should never ever be interpreted as "that safespeed mob of "rebels" are at it again!" :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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 01:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
I've not read properly through the last two pages. There is too much there.

I can see speculation that there is some underlying reason why I was originally pulled over or some underlying reason why I was convited that has not already been mentioned here or anywhere else. (And that is indeed why the defence called an expert witness).

This is simply not the case.

On the day in question, I was riding home the same way I had ridden home every working day for the previous 16 months. My bike was in full roadworthy condition. Rear LED was switched on despite there still being good day light. I was wearing a helmet and bright clothing. The sun was shining, the visibility was excellent, there was no wind.

I negotiate the first roundabout prior to the stretch of road on which I was stopped with no problems. I accelerate upto 20 mph as soon as I join the roundabout and move across from right to left to take the turn. Due to the situation I was in with vehicles tailgating/overtaking/tailgating I hold my speed and position. It's not safe to accelerate. The first time I found myself in that position on that road in the 16 months of using it daily. I can't go into specifics here because it is disputed. When the vehicles between the bike and the police car have all passed, the police officers decide to conduct a stop check.

The officer gettings out of the vehicles starts to advise me that the hard strip is a cycle lane and I should be in it. By riding outside of it at more than 10 mph I'm causing an inconvenience. I try to point out that the hard strip is not a cycle lane and that by riding in it I would be endangering myself. Reasons I don't need to go into here but they are documented in Mr. Franklin's book. Also if the drivers had been showing consideration, I Would have been able to accelerate to my normal speed for this road and reduced the inconvenience to a reasonable one - possibly none at all depending on whether there we cars waiting at the giveway onto the next roundabout a very short distance away. The cycle path on the opposide side of the road was not mentioned. When the officers refused to listen to me and reiterated that I was being inconsiderate doing what I was doing I did get quite defensive, a little upset and a little angry. That said, I did not loose my temper or even swear. (Although they disputed that). Me raising my voice to make myself heard above the traffic was missconstrued.

I was read my rights and warned I might be reported for the offence of driving without consideration to other road users. I walked to the police station to try and talk to the duty seargent who really, refused to go into it.

So to summarise, at the roadside, the concern to the officers was my positioning prevented drivers from overtaking within the double solid white lines.

In court the judge's opinion was that I ignored the cyclepath.

Obviously, as I was originally pulled over because of my positioning, John Franklin was the obvious expert witness. He was also the ideal person to comment on the cycling infrastructure (the cycle path). The problems with the cycle path were covered comprehensively in his report with pictorial evidence.

I don't think the CPS had properly evaluated the case due to resourcing shortages.

I can't really comment further on what happened in court. The defense was well thought out and prepared. On the stand I reassured spectators in the public gallery by being consistent and standing up well to the prosecution. Especially when the prosecution asked if I was riding in the middle of the road, to which I answered no, I was riding 2/3 feet in from the solid left hand white line. The prosecution then said the two officers had informed the court I was riding in the centre of the road. I pointed out that both officers had also informed the court that I was riding 2/3 feet in from the solid left hand white line which is not the in the middle of a 10 and a half feet wide road. The prosecutors mouth fell open and he stopped in his tracks but the judge did not bat an eyelid.

On the road in question, if a cyclist is using it to west, there is no safe place for a car/van/lorry to pass. There is no where for the cyclist to pull over.

It takes me a minute to cycle down that road. A car with capabilities for instant breaking or accelerating could manage that road in 30 seconds at the NSL. An HGV with the same qualities of instant acceleration of braking could manage the road in 45 seconds.

The limit on that road is to be revised to 40 mph. I don't think the council could do this if the average speed on that road was much over 40 mph. (They have not been able to introduce 30 limit on another road near me because the average speed is to high at 37mph).

As for road design, the two lanes going up hill is fruitless on such a short stretch because of the waiting time at the roundabout. The traffic if anything needs slowing down to reduce instances of stationary vehicles being 100% inefficient at the roundabout. It has been done in other parts of Telford but on roads, where there is a roundabout at the top of the climb, that have a steeper gradient and are a lot longer.

It's ironic that PC Mark Milton was acquited by the same judge that convicted me, but not only that, PC Mark Milton and I received divisional commendations from West Mercia Telford division at the same time about 18 months ago.

_________________
It's not what you ride... it's how you ride it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:44 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Hi Ed/Dan

I don't think anyone can get their heads around this one! Everything about it seems absurd and I can well see Victor Meldrew proclaiming that he does not believe it (the cretins bringing this to court ... not you! :P )

You say

Quote:
The officer gettings out of the vehicles starts to advise me that the hard strip is a cycle lane and I should be in it. By riding outside of it at more than 10 mph I'm causing an inconvenience. I try to point out that the hard strip is not a cycle lane and that by riding in it I would be endangering myself


I am sure you have a photo.. Go to book shop. Purchase copy of "Know Your Road Signs". Photocopy page 45.

This spells out that the line marking this hard strip marks the "edge of the carriageway" and is not a "cycle lane".

Don't know the road.. but you say "hard strip".. :scratchchin: ... as in the sort of rumble strip/raised ribs whch marks off "hard shoulder"? Still not a "cycle lane " :roll: though! In fact .. very VERY dangerous to expect a cyclist to ride along that :roll:

Police Officer worth his weight in doughnuts should know this :wink: IG did post to this effect when BC challenged him when he commented on the story as it appeared in the March volume of C+ (Um..we do actually buy the rag - Kriss (sister-in-law) subscribes and me and Wildy tend to alternate each month as I like me car mags too and we have too many kids ... :P ) Am amazed that they even made such a ridiculously inept comment and that it even got to court. Should have been thrown out as nonsense it really is.. :roll:

You know we (as in IG, self, my wife and the pack of relatives ( that :twisted: mob) and good many on this and PH boards) back the "Give Cyclists Room" campaign fully and absolutely.

Zero reason to tailgate anyone and zero reason to overtake a cyclist with insufficient room to do so. Such people are zeros and we all would love that sort to be "banged to rights" and we are the supposedly :shock: that bunch of "anarchistic hoons" per young Ladylad! 8-) :roll: :P If only! :lol:


Truth is.. we post on here to try to get people to think COAST model, evaluate skills - but the pre-occupation is with speed and not with trying to motivate to improve to best capabilities.

Truth is we are just normal guys and gals who want road safety out there for all of us, with correctly trained cops and we want to cut down a forest of unsightly yellow tins which really don't do as "advertised" anyway! :wink: But whlst we call for more cops.. we do actually want sensible ones and not the jobsworthy who don't know very much.




Just how old were these officers by the way? Still on probation? Get your team to ask these nosey questions! :wink: about "experience on the job" :wink:


But am still amazed that they took you to court for this... and the accounts of this case .. I think the judge should be charged with "bringing justice to a farce!" If I ruled the world.. if only! :lol:

Appreciate things are sub judice - mate. But you have the support here - and if any of us on this board asks a "roughish question" - we'd only be trying to help you around those hellish questions the other lot can chuck at you :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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 00:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Tailgating - a form of bullying and intimidation.

Dan .. did you feel they were "foricng you off the road or trying to make you increase your speed by the proximity to your rear" as you paced towards your turn.. bearing in mind you'd be needing primary to go where you wanted to go...

Do get hold of "Know Your Road Signs"... As Ted's mentioned - page 45 gives the example.


Am amazed any officer would tell you that the "edge of carriageway" mark constituted a "cycle lane".

Hope you have photos showing this is not so.


Just to make you feel better - cop a load of this :shock: :?


Image

Aboslutely unbelievable that so many do not know the "Give Way" markings .. :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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 23:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 02:07
Posts: 242
People are more likely to know them in context on the road than just seeing a diagram of some lines.

Anyway, in spite of what you have said, I think "rights" do have a lot to do with this case.

Was he holding up other drivers? Yes. But that does not necessarily mean he was illegally causing an obstruction. Otherwise, as others have said, any driver on the road is causing an obstruction. The fact that one has an alternative route to the destination is irrelevant.

Effectively the judgement was that he had no legitimate right to use that particular road.

By the way, I think it is not enough if he wins the appeal that he just "goes free". I think the police who reported him and the judge who found him guilty should be found accountable. How about making the judge pay £300 in compensation?

Lucky it was him and not me. If it had been me it would have made a real criminal out of me. I have enough road-rage incidents as it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 18:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Earl Purple wrote:
People are more likely to know them in context on the road than just seeing a diagram of some lines.

Anyway, in spite of what you have said, I think "rights" do have a lot to do with this case.





You have no idea how difficult it is to get charges laid for "inconsiderate and even dangerous" In fact - in the latter - we usually go for "careless" as easier to secure a conviction and get the danger removed by way of ban.

Am baffled by what Ed says anyway... we have to have the evidence to get CPS lay charges in the first place. I do not understand how any cop can claim an edge line constitutes a "cycle lane" if I understand correctly here.


I have never come across any police officer long career to date booking and pressing charges nor CPS going for it on such apparetnly flimsy grounds.

Truth will out in long run anyway.

If there was something biased in this prosecution - my Mum always told me that "what goes around - comes around with knobs on!"

Quote:
Was he holding up other drivers? Yes. But that does not necessarily mean he was illegally causing an obstruction. Otherwise, as others have said, any driver on the road is causing an obstruction. The fact that one has an alternative route to the destination is irrelevant.


But it depends on the perception. There is one item in Ed's post above which I would suggest he re-reads and thinks hard about. CPS will pick and grill over it. Not suggesting anything "untoward" in Ed's behaviour but it can open up some awkward questions on the stand: I think it only right if we are to help Ed that he reads one sentence up there and considers how to field the questions when on the stand. Am not going to say what it is... BC will start off on one again :roll:

Quote:
Effectively the judgement was that he had no legitimate right to use that particular road.


As it comes across - neither prosecution nor the defence could prove the case to the D.J - and he was probably confused by the overwhelming expert witness input. A few photos of the site, the path, and photocopies of relevant Cycle Craft pages/Proficiency/National Standard criteria/Know Your Road Signs and the Highway Code with reard to solid whites and "non legal" rquirement re cycle paths would have been short :wink: and sweet to the point!

Even though I passed comment that the judge was the same one who acquitted Milton over the speeding charges is really neither here nor there. Speeding and inconsiderate cycling are separate issues and West Mercia did not have a requirement for explicit permission to "test cars" whilst on duty at the time. Owing to public and media outcry - all 43 forces are harmonising procedures. As for Milton - going to appeal on point of law again anyway and he was still discharged without judiicial and statutory punishment for dangerous driving.

For record - do not condone and every Force I have been with over the years has always insisted on procedure being followed regarding training and familiarising ourselves with our " toys!"

Quote:
By the way, I think it is not enough if he wins the appeal that he just "goes free". I think the police who reported him and the judge who found him guilty should be found accountable. How about making the judge pay £300 in compensation?




Oh yeah..


You not heard then of the blokes wrongly accused of murder .. recent cases the Rochdale and Bakewell murders whereby some slow learner was jailed for murder and then found innocent. Compensation for miscarriage of justice, wrongful deprivation of liberty had costs of board and lodging at HM pleasure deducted. The women convicted by virtue of an "anything but expert witness" will receive very little compo - if any per the tabloid press.

Life's a bitch and seems to short term to favour those who can manipulate and defraud. Slippery and they silther though our fingers. They'll suffer in senile years - hopefully :wink: I do not have the same respect for elderly suffering criminals as I would for war veterans and other steady old folk - let's put it that way. :wink: I wish a long lingering real suffering for them and a short but happy-ish "senile/ga-ga" existence for other old boys and girls.

Quote:
Lucky it was him and not me. If it had been me it would have made a real criminal out of me. I have enough road-rage incidents as it is.


Road rage solves nothing. It just adds to the problems and the violence and mindless, nonsensical deaths.

Best to drive and ride to COAST.. pre-empt and defend against problems. Makes life a lot simpler.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.409s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]