Safe Speed Forums

The prosecutions argument was more that I was cycling in a considerate manner by using the main part of the carriageway. They did mention the cycle path but it wasnt a major part of their case.

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

Ed that's what I mean by "caught unawares" - of course everyone was "aware" there was a cycle path, but it wasn't part of the case against you.

The prosecution have to provide the defence with a skeleton of the case against you so they can prepare the arguments in your defence. The prosecution would not have been able to bring this out of a hat in the court. That's why the defence were not prepared when the judge switched to this line of reasoning.

I have spoken to Andreas and Siegli on the telephone on reading this. These guys are lawyers -

Prosecution do indeed have to provide a skeleton of the case against so that defence can act appropriately.

I am not sure that Ed had the right defence here - too much subjectivity.

IG stated on another thread on here that the charge would have been "inconsiderate cycling". He'd read of the story in C+ - but with things being sub judice - he just thought there must be more than reported in the magazine article as it was a rather unusual situation.

Spoke to both Andreas and Siegli. Siegli is based abroad and Andreas is unusual in that he works here. Both think that the defence bombarded the judge with too much focussing on the primary positioning. OK - so Franklin is an "expert" - but he's also subjective and the issue was really about the degree of inconsideration to other road users at the time. Andreas says he would not have used Franklin at all. He would have taken photos of the debris and the dangerous crossing to reach this lane to show his client's logic in not choosing to use this lane. Photographic evidence - even after the event - is allowed as it "clarifies" He would have sat down with you to choose which photos showed most clearly and proved the point more clearly too. Andreas and Siegli say they liaise closely with their clients and advise the best course of action - but will act in accordance with their clients' wishes at all times. The client has to be happy with the line they take is their bottom line.

Andreas picked up on the fact that



He says he would have really hammered on this and twisted to ensure that the drivers would still have broken the double white - had you been well to the left in secondary position. Depends to some extent on the car too.

Andreas does say he has precedents set by virtue of the weird one in Wales involving a pensioner, a car and a tractor amongst others he would have mentioned in his role of getting the best outcome for the client.

Onus was to prove the standard of riding was not inconsiderate and that the presence of the cycle lane was irrelevant as it would be more for the on-coming up hill riders' safety than the downhill one.

Andreas says he would still have taken photos showing the state of the lane to cover his defence just in case as he once lost a case by something like this occurring many years ago. He vowed it would never happen again and he does say that there are grounds for appeal if the judge summed up as you describe as he did not reach the conclusion based on the evidence submitted.

An appeal will not re-try the case. Andreas saysv- on appeal in UK - he would go for the judge's summing up without regard to the facts as presented by the prosecution and defence alike. He would refer to the poo-pooing of the state of this cycle path by submitting a photo of its normal state of the "truly dangerous for any user" and argue that the reasoning was not based on the "finding of fact" as presented to him before the court . Does come across as unusally subjective and Andreas suspects he was turned off by too much harping on the Franklin report. Andreas and Siegli both say they keep things simple professionally and view judges like "children"

Ed - run their initial past your legal team if you are appealing this anyway.

So - there was speculation when IG first posted up what he read in C+ back when this started up. I did ask him. He only lives just across the county border along the A66 from me - we are close buddy pals. Don't like him as a passenger in my car though... he notices everything. It's worse than any driving test Love being a passenger in his car though..I appreciate a darned good ride

Anyway - as he told me at the time - he was rather hoping you'd lurk and post your side before it went to trial as he thought some here could give you the hard questions you'd get from the prosecutor and some would be on your side and give some defence ideas. As he pointed out - he would have pm'd to explain what he was doing and that it was not being nasty to you - but trying to get that "witness/defence statement" absolutely bomb proof enough to stand up against the accusations when on the stand. We would have tried to focus you on how to argue your point effectively and maybe succeed in that court room. Honest! We are not anti-cycling. Nor do we do personal attack either.

We are very much pro-justice and we would want justice for all whether they ride a bike or drive a car

By the way Am truly sorry the outcome was disappointing for you. Hope you do appeal and are successful.

Hope you join in the debates on here too. We have the odd disagreement and leg-pull - but we are a friendly bunch and would try as far as we can to offer friendly support and advice.

_________________
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.

Then you have grounds for appeal. He convicted you as I understand for not using the path. This is not a A MUST DO in the Highway Code.

You were charged with inconsiderate cycling under s29 of the Road Traffic Act and that was what the CPS were supposed to prove.



Then why did your defence focus on this and CTC have Franklin to promote this. All they had to do was show pages 58-59 which is what you apparently did anyway.



Which Andreas claims can be challenged and won on appeal based on what he has read so far of this case. He did not find on fact and he convicted you on something which is not an offence in any case. No law to say you must use the lane. Only that you should use if it's possible.



But they seemed from all accounts to have mounted a cycling rights soapbox over right to use the road and rigth to ride in primary position. Courts of law are not the places to do this and your defence should have been answering the charges made against you.

From the bare bones as presented:

1. You were on an NSL road. You were in primary and cars breached solid whites to pass. (though you say it was really a mix)

2. One of these was a police van? He decided to charge you with inconsiderate cycling and cited a nearby cycle lane which he claimed yoiu should have used.

3. CPS decided there was a case to answer.

We wondered if there was some other factor as it's unusual - to point of rare (though Andreas has uncovered two cases - similar and thrown out of court. Your defence should be interested for appeal purposes.)

We wondered about lay-bys and so on. We asked about HGV and traffi limited to 40 mph. A riding speed of 30 mph would then not have been causing inconvenience.

You explained there were no ;lay-bys. Short stretch of road in reality.

So what we cannot understand is why your defence went to the trouble of getting Franklin as a witness to argue the case land focussed so much on primary riding position. He did from the posts I read also mention the cycle lane state as well.

Basically - all that was needed was photo showing state of the cycle path, danger of reaching this path and stating the obvious that primary was adopted to prevent following traffic from placing you in danger. All you needed was pages 58-59 of Cycle Craft. Most importantly that the law does not require you to use the path anyway.

I think the Judge does not ride a bicycle - was probably confused by too much information as to priamry v secondary riding positiions and this all served to fudge the issue to him. He most probably latched onto the only bit he could understand - the cycle path and was most probably subjective as opposed to objective in his decision. The fact that he focussed on the cycle lane to convict you is grounds for appeal it itself as it is not the Law.


Not sure your defence was competent based on the apparent over- emphasis on the primary riding position.

I think you should appeal and think an appeal would be successful providing it keeps objectively to salient facts and points out you were aparrently convicted for not using a cycle path

_________________
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.

Eh?

So what was the reason for wasting your time and tax payers' money by bringing this ludicrous case?

Is it a typing error? You mean "inconsiderate"?

Even so - pages 58-59 and pointing out the width of the road and proximity of passing cars could endanger - thus you were trying to comply to asafety led approach.

_________________
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.

Seemed to matter to the arresting officer, (at outset) CPS (sort of) and the judge in his summing up though.
#
Was up the defence Counsel to make it plain that the law does not require a cyclist to use a cycle lane - and a simple photo would have shown why Ed decided it would not be prudent to use the lane in any case.

But we are down to part of the problem - the Soap box attitude and courts of law are not the place to use them. I am sorry CTC and Ed - but it does come across that way and the law is black and white. It does not have emotion. It is a double edge sword. We have to have a justice system which is objective and void of emotion - but we humans are very emotional and want to see a wrong righted.

Defence did not need to bombard the judge with an expert witness. All they needed was

1. width of road
2. length of road stretch
3. lack of lay-byes (once we established this )
4. pages 58-59 of Cyclecraft
5. Rule 46 -ish of Highway Code
6. Danger ot Ed to get to cycle lane (photo}
7. State of the debris (photo)
8. Danger to Daniel (aka Ed) from overtakes in this stretch which is why he chose to ride in proimary/secondary mix.


No it's not the law yet and Ed can appeal against the decisiion as it seems he was convicted for not using the lane per the judge's summing up.

Current advice is the use a cycle route where practicable and to keep with a cycle lane where possible. (HC rules 40-47)




Um - you think we do not pull these? In our patch we do indeed target these before we nail speeders.

Somehow at risk of sounding complacent and pompous - our stats seem to back me. Lowest KSI rate in the country still.



I am not going to comment on one sentence in this bit of your post John.

But as for the rest - how on earth do you know they "did nothing" Police do not do dangerous to cop someone.

We have some odd little things in our cars.. er - radios.. video and gadgets for taking photos of offenders.

I have not said Ed has no right to be on the road either. I simply suggested where his defence seemed to go pear shaped. I did wish he had posted on here first as I would have asked questions designed to get his story straight for the courts and I would have made it very plain that I would have been trying to help him get that witness statement ready for the innevitably nasty questions which are asked. He would have been made welcome and got support in any case.

I speak from experience. Lawyers do try to trick you and get your to contradict yourself if they can.


Courts of law do not do emotiion. Nor are they soap boxes for campaigns either.

It's about time people realised this.

_________________
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.

err, because while stopped at a red light I watched them drive off down the road behind the "offender" and they didn't pull (or even catch up to) him in the half mile or so that I could see. Compare that response to the car I saw follow a red light running wvm through the lights (with appropriate beeping of the horn to make sure we'd noticed they were going to do so) and pull him over within a few hundred metres.



maybe you do but you know what we think about cameras around here.



no, but they should at least enforce the law as it currently stands - something which quite clearly did not happen here.

So you are an expert on what we actually do then?

Half a mile? In my more junior days - I'd follow a lot further and in an umarked - tagged along behind for around 3 miles before I pulled them.

It's about making sure you have the evidence to hold up in court. You do not know what went on thereafter - do you? So you cannot say or calim "they did nothing" because you do not know if they pulled or not for sure.




Red light jumping is definitely illegal and potentially lethal. We can put on the blues and twos to alert - but even then - we would only go through a red on a legit shout if sure it was safe to do so.

In the case of the Mr stupid overtake - it was not safe for them to act and they will have decided to play what we call a "stealth game" - sniff around and then pull We give a little time for the driver to think a little about his driving in this way and usually by this time he has worked out why are interested in him. It does help focus on error. We would rather the driver work it out for him or herself than be told. It does help them learn. Seems to work anyway.



Yeah - but there is a difference between a nice polite cop playing it back in front of the offender there and then and some advice - and a buff letter two weeks after the event.



But that's what went wrong. The law as it currently stands came across as being hi-jacked by "cyclist right to ride in primary position" and failed to address the charges Ed was really facing. It was not about "right to be on the road" as such. But how far that style of riding under the condition as prevailed at that particular moment could have been construed as "inconsiderate" and as I understand the original charge seemed to suggest Ed was inconsiderate because

1. he held up traffic on 60 mph stretch by riding as fast as he could at 30 mph in a primary position
2. he did not use a nearby cycle path.

Now we know for fact that there's no legal requirement that Ed had to use the cycle path. The fact the judge used this means he can appeal in any case as the sum up was not in line with his statutory obligation oin this basis.

In the case of the being inconsiderate by holding up the traffic - then if there were HGVs or vehicles limited to 40 mph in the line behind him - then a ride at 30 mph is not at all unreasonable in terms of holding up traffic. Why Wildy mentioned this as it occurred to her at the time. Woman is precise in her driving. I have to look up the Highway Code to establish rule number. Wildy just rattles them off! She's blessed with a good memory. But Ed has not been able to confirm this and it could be helpful to him if he can recall. I think if one of my team had run this past me - I would have asked him a lot of questions. I do not think we would have taken any such action here. We see lots of cyclists here - nice riding area and we have a Beacon town on our patch as well.

But Ed should appeal. He could win it so long as his defence keep it simply to the actual facts of the charges and the basis for conviction as Ed had no legal requirement to use the cycle lane and to all intents and purposes was not riding recklessly nor illegally given the circumstance as he describes.

As the Mad Lad posted - we want justice for all road users and we all want the dangerous off the road as well. Unfortunately - those who are serial offenders know how to pay the system. Those like Ed don't and get treated unfairly.

_________________
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.

really?


yeah, so stealthy the driver never knew they were there. Welcome to London, I'd put money on nothing having happened.
Did I mention I once had a police van do exactly the same thing? Very important to get past these busses at all costs you know.

Yes - really because you tell us so

In past post you said:



The rest of this is your perception which is not exactly based on actual experience of what could have occurred later on - once they caught up with him. You - no more than I do - know for sure if the police in that car did "nothing". Anymore than I can have known for sure whether there are lay byes on this stretch of road without seeing the actual stretch for myself and not a chosen photo on a blog which could show just what I am intended to see. As it happens - Ed has explained on this site and I have now two photos from other and complertely independent sources which seem to support him - including half a dozen photos taken at different times of the year confirming the constant state of the cycle path and that bend as well.. I can always forward these to Ed and his defence/appeal team

But the photo I had originally and two others show how a cleverly taken photo can distort

I do not take the word of something seen on any web site. I always ask questions.

Am now satisfied that Ed has been honest with us - wish him well and hope he appeals with success.

Hope he continues to add to discussions on this board too. He does have the overall support in his appeal - but I know from being on a witness stand that most people have zero idea of how the law process actually works. It is not at all emotional. It is dry, cold, black and white and completely devoid of any feeling. It looks solely at the facts and you have to counter one prosecuting fact with another factor which will cast a reasoned doubt on the procecution's case. Why police paperwork has to be precise and clear and according to procedure

In this case - we appeared to have a copper who probably could not pass the cyclist safely. He noted the cycle path and noted - as I understand from the horse's mouth so to speak - that drivers in the line all overtook safely but illegally. He seemed to see this going on only whilst Daniel was in primary but did not wtness the changes between positioning to be in accordance with acclaimed good practice. He made a judgement then based on a fleeting observation and I have to say "subjectivity" because of the cycle path aspect. He thus charged Daniel under s29 .

For CPS to have backed - his paperwork must have been "precise" - but int the courts - that paperwork's quality is just as much on trial as the accused


- and Daniel's defence team - in time honoured tradition - should have addressed this and only this charge in the court in real terms - referring only and in simplest terms to relevant pages of Cycle Craft, the Highway Code and the fact that Dan is not legally obliged to use the darned lane. They hit with an "expert witness" and a lengthy dissertation on the right to ride in primary and not "in the gutter".

This failed to address the issue in question in black and white terms - which was basically whether or not the cycling was inconsiderate - and all Dan had to do was point out state of cycle lane and the danger of reaching it - based on what he says the policeman said to him - point out that the law does not oblige him to use a lane or path, and just state simply that the road width, length of stretch and approach to the junction/roundabout whatever made a primary positioning vital for the safety of all under the prevailing road condition.



Most of our customers register shock, horror and surprise when our lads and lasses appear "suddenly and from nowhere"

I worked the Met years ago a raw recruit. My older brother is currently with the Met. He agrees that trafpol levels are not quite as they are in my patch and we each know that when he and I served there fresh out of Hendon - Met was a strong and fully manned team - fully integrated within all divisions. Now not so - depleted traffic.. redeployed officers to other duties..cut backs and "plastics"

It all contributes long term reality for a promise of "more" meaning "less"

But even so - most of us are conscientious - even in London I would think that if the action was as dangerous as you say - then that crew would have followed and watched. He may have noted them and driven like an "angel" - in which case you just know "punter got message and may have damp or even brown trousers"



Ah.. but .. many of these hold the same licence as the normal everday driver. Maybe a low level training course - but ,.. still prone to same sort of numpty behaviour at times.

John - a uniform does not magically make one a super-duper expert on driving, fire arms, with a radar-like ability of nailing the criminals who matter most to Joe Public - the vandal/ shoplifter/ burglar/rapist/TWOCer/joyrider/ illegal driver/ yob/happy slapper/bully/drug dealer.kiddy fidder/human traffficker and all other low lifes. You have courses and you have to pass a few exam and attitude tests to prove you are worthy of receiving such courses as well.

It thus does not mean that a police van driver is any mor nor less skilled than any other driver and if trained to basic level - he's no different to anyone else.

No more than a Hendon graduation necessarily makes me a better driver than Riggers, Ted, Wildy, Gatsobait, Ern, Paul (or anyone else on this site ) or even you. Am just the same as anyone else - I learn and seek to try to improve each time I get into my car or onto my bike! Might give me a slight edge - but then they really hammered you over mistakes and you take the criticism if you truly wish to improve and learn anyway

_________________
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.

Right... What about a second later once I'd done my magic car avoiding trick, passed the bus and the road was clear. Yes, that's when they shot off in hot pursuit... of the doughnut shop.


I can tell you right now that there's absolutely no way that it even registered in his peanut brain that he'd done anything wrong. In fact this is standard practice for the average motorist in London. No matter what's coming the other way (or what's in your way), if there's a bus or cyclist in front of you then YOU MUST OVERTAKE - and even it's even better if you're not first in the queue because then you know it's safe to just follow the car in front.



oh, well that's ok then. So he's allowed to turn his lights and siren on and drive the thing at warp 10 through heavy traffic but he's got no idea that it's dangerous to veer out from behind a bus and drive directly at a cyclist?
How reassuring.

One more question for Ed, Do you cycle this route every day at the same time, or often or rarely?

I think the judgemant was wrong but I can't get my head around the copper booking you on a one off.
I am wondering if "he" or another motorist regularly get hot under the collar not being able to proceede at thier desired time and speed?

_________________
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

Anton - Ed partially answers in this previous post. It's the one thing I cannot get my head around either - why I thought another factor "such as presence of a lay-by or something whihc would have explained the logic clearly. Police and CPS just do not prosecute "on whims". There has to be some case to answer.





Then take some pictures and present them in your appeal - Ed.


EH? If the road is NSL - it has a speed limit - the national one of 60 mph. It certainly is not "unrestricted" but might possibly forbid any waiting or stopping from what you describe. We can and do fine people for exceeding this limit by the way.



Possible under the proposed audit of speed limits - but there are a couple of NSL in towns as well. Can think of some around here and I think the Mad Cats posted up Kevin Tea's opinion from their local press on the forum. A lot of factors will no doubt be taken into consideration and you cannot guarantee that the limit will lower to 30 mph - especially when you say below that you can reach 40 mph on your bike on this road.

I have to ask this

If this limit was reduced to 30 mph and you admit below to reaching 40 mph regularly on this stretch before you "had to slow for traffic turning right further on - wouldyou obey it - or would the rule only apply to the motorist and not yourself?






Not really - ask yourself why there may be a crawler lane and a lane for traffic to pass. Makes sense - standard design in reality. Large lorries would struggle - so they design the road so that traffic - including very fir cyclists can get past them on the climb.

But they have insufficient space for two lanes - so the sacrifice the ovetaking lane on the way down - especially if there is a hazard of a right turn ahead. Not my speculation Ed - you tell us so.



They would still queue and on a wide carriageway - probably form two lines or try to. You tmay think I am making this up because it does not meet with your own opinion - but -er - spent a fair chunk of my working life investigating accidents - involving all things on wheels. Seen dozens of roads with a similar lay-out and similar traffic to that which you describe here.

Bottom line Ed - they ain't going to redesign the road for you, me or anyone else. They may decide to reduce the speed lmit to say 30 mph and you - like the drivers will have to ride at that speed.



What is the exact traffic situation at the roundabout? Does this road cross another very busy road? Is it like this at rush hour only or is there a half mile queue each day as a constant on the opposite direction?

I ask this to establish how rock solid your case here - The A59 and A66 alike have some similar stretches to this one . Use both of them fairly regularly when visiting the "hooligan contingent"



So you keep saying Ed and I am tired of this argument "that people think cyclists have no right to be on the road" either - as it basically just aon't true.

I can assure you that police officers do not charge people with inconderate or careless anything "because they were on the road" There has to be something which you and those posting their reports (and let's face it and I am going to be very blunt here and I have to be because my job is to uphold and enforce the law objectively , with a little professional lee-way for discretion and without emotion - but those persons lepaing up and down in your defence are not exactly objective so it is difficult to get a plain picture of what exactly the CPS and the policeman were on about.

Ed - you were charged with "inconsiderate cycling" under s29. I am trying to find out why you were charged with this. It has nothing to do with your right to be on the road. No one is denying that. It has everything to do with how that policeman judged that ride and his report to CPS who decided to prosecute. They do the deciding in reality - based on our collectied hard evidence - and this evidence is also on trial just as much as the accused.

If your "positioning " was not the problem - then one has to ask why Franklin was called as an expert to explain why we adopt a primary position and why this is a life saver to us when we ride. We also have to ask what was the problem. The original article said you were riding in primary position, ahead of the traffic in a 60 mph limit. It said the drivers broke the solid double whites rule and that the policeman charged you with inconsiderate cycling and failed to prosecute the drivers for a a clear cut motoring offence. Worse - the CPS decided to go ahead with this. Now I am lost here - as I have one post from you which says the issue was not the position, and that the cycle path was "not part of the CPS case but that the judge decided to convict on this when the prosecution failed to prove your riding position was not lacking in any skill at all."

So - what was their case? The charge was "inconsiderate cycling" and if the issue was the cycle path - then the law states very clearly you are not legally obliged to use it. I do doubt the CPS would have gone with this.. they do actually check up on these little factors. BUT ... If this was the case - then it should have been thrown out. If the charge was "failing to use the path" - and you were convicted of this - then there should zero hesitation of an appeal You should win on this - easily!

Hence my concern that your defence went off on a "cyclist rights" issue. You yourself seem to think this was a "cyslist rights" issue - but the law does not charge people with inconsiderate, careless behaviour just for "being on the road".

Courts are not the places to do this. You answer to the charges laid against you - which the other lot have to prove beyond reasoned doubt - and yoiu defence places that reasoned doubt in the minds of an objective judge/jury.



So come on - Ed! What exactly was the case against you as you say it was not the road position and that the judge took it into his own hands at sum up to convict on the cycle lane issue (and conviction unsound on that basis anyway)


Ed - am trying to make sense of this case as it impacts on the rest of us who ride bikes as well. It is not helping matters to simply state you were prosecuted because "you had no right to be o the road" No one can ever be charged with that (unless they have a tag, ASBO restriction on access or an injunction placed on them and they break this. )

But then - are we getting a bit closer



Was it more the positioning at the roundabout? Did he think you were not slowing enough as you approached the roundabout there?

It still does not make much sense though. The charges, the description of the line the defence ran (Franklin and the road positioning and Ed even mentions this was the defence and yet says the positioning was not the issue) . But CPS do not prosecute willy nilly either - and should this lad have been prosecuted and convicted just because he did not use a cycle path and convicted of something which just is not on in the Road Traffic Act or anywhere on Statute - then something terribly amiss in Shropshire.



I still find it difficult to believe that the prosecution was made because you were on the road and not the path - and if this was the case - still baffled why the emphasis on Franklin and road positioning and not pages 150 onwards of his work. But even then - not necessary as the law does not require this and all defence had to do was show where it says so in hte Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act. They did not need to overcook the case!

_________________
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.

Yep - they will have gone after the bloke.

Did you see them stop at the doughnut shop?


Well - it's the North-South divide. We Northeners obviously have "class and style" as well a possessing a better intellect




Never said a uniform suddenly made a an expert driver, sleuthe, crime stopper or anything like that.

Lot of police drivers hold ordinary licences. Like anything else you have to show potential to get up the ladder and specialise in whatever field of expertise. None of us are allowed to simply use sirens or speed at Warp Factor 10 without good reason either.

If police driver does that again - you can and should report it in. You may think nothing is done because you get no feed back. Does not mean he did not get an interview with his/her superior "without the offer of a chair, coffess and doughnuts" though

_________________
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.

I wonder if "putting the proscutor in his place" may have been part of the problem as well. One thing to argue your corner but "putting someone prosecuting you in his or her place" may have given a wrong impression to the judge. Assertive but not argumentative or truculent. Am not "speculating" - it does say this in the opening post - and Ed - courts of law are funny old places - full of funny old dry "farties" as my wife calls them (but only on this and PH for fun and within our own home)


"left of the white mark of which end of the carriageway? The white line at the kerbsid is usually inches from the kerbside - h'd have to have been "tightriding" or wobbling on the kerb or on the pavement if he was supposed to be to the left of a white line marking the edge for the carriageway. I cannot see that somehow. Secondary is about 3 feet from the moving traffic line in a flow and about 1.5 foot from the edge of the kerb and I recall being taught that by the police when a lad at school and being trained for the Proficiency test in my final year in Preps.

Still do not get this. In any case - if the cycle path was the issue as Ed says in a later post explaining why Franklin was required to speak on this... still do not get why he was needed when all was needed was to point out the Highway Code stating we do not have to use these lanes. (I refuse to use some around here and if the law dicated I use it - I somehow think I would become a "lycra lout" over it. and just continue to ride safely [i] in secondary or even primary if necessary - but certainly not within the non-starter of a "lane". I note with some glee that the paint has faded and no one appears to have come to repaint it. Just hope they never do and that this stupidity fades to sennsible oblivion)


I still think a bit too much focussing on "rights" and not enough on just calmly stating no legal requirement to use the lane and that left of white line they are talking about is not even "road" or even "gutter"

There are one or too things which do seem a bit contradictory though to me.


Original story says the officer said he should have been using the path and yet Ed says it was not a"major part of the case" - yet earlier post seemed to suggest Franklin was there to lend weight to the non-use of this path. Then Ed says the positioning was not the problem either.

So.. I am confused now... Franklin's report focussed on the position and according to Ed - Franklin (who did not see the ride) said the riding technique was "perfect" - but this is based on how Ed says he rode that day - but not apparently how the policeman judged it and given the alleged remark over using the cycle lane - I will have to assume that this officer has not ridden a bike and probably was driven to and from by his Mummy. Thus I would question whether or not policeman judged the ride from the point of view of someone skilled in riding a bike in any case. Was he asked any questions as to his knowledge of riding at any point Ed? We are trying to help you pick up the pieces and just pick u, dust down and get back into court with an appeal and perhaps even a complete re-hearing - but you need to establish exactly what the charge was and I cannot fathom out whether it was the positioning or the cycle path (and the latter - you squash because you have no legal obligation to use it anyway). So we are back to the positioning and perhaps your speed? Were you 25 mph? 30 mph? 40 mph?

What was in front of you? You say you end up pulling up behind traffic queuing at the roundabout to turn right. Does this carriageway spread to two lanes at the roundabout? Were you jamming (again legal) or filtering (again legal)

Can you remember what sort of vehicle was behind you and whether or not anything large overtook you on this double white?

It was only half mile anyway. I would not have even bothered even if I had had space.. not worth it as probably a decent overake area beyond this stretch. Did the road widen or was it 30 mph urban at the roundabout.. again this would have made an overtake seem a bit pointless really.

Ed - best of luck with an appeal - I think the conviction is unsound based on what you are saying overall - but I think you need to think about the wording of the exact allegations and address each one for exactly what it says. Cycle path one easy - point out Highway Code and no legal requirement to use it. Show photo of path as dangerous.

Take photo of road. Show that "riding to the left of the white line marking the edge of the carriageway" means you are wither on the footpath (illegal) or would be wobbling very dangerously and "inconsiderately" on the edge of the road. Photo and brief referral to the relvant chapter in Franklin's book should prove the logic for your need to ride in primary.

Above all if you are lucky and get this reheard on appeal - please don't take this the wrong way - but do not "put the other side in their place" and please instruct your defence lawyer to get off his or her waffly soapbox and address the charge and not a "cause" of "rights to ride on road" as no one actually disputes that.

_________________
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.

half a mile? I've seen people lock-up and nearly slam into the queue of stopped traffic in front of them in their haste overtake the cyclist "holding them up" (ie me).

Case in this week's CW (gather on their forum as well )

I have to say that whilst I do sympathise and understand exactly what Dan is saying - I have to at least look at the other criteria. I have only one side of the story in reality and I know that decisions to prosecute are not taken lightly nor on a whim. They are certainly not decided on "prejudice" and I still wonder if we have all the established "facts". I say this because I know that no cyclist would ever be prosecuted for adopting a primary between a half mile stretch between two roundabouts - path or no path - up in this area and I cannot even imagine myself doing so as Trapol - in the Met or GMP - with whom I have served in the past.


No disrespect intended but..

I am thus perplexed and prone to think that something is missing from the jigsaw - especially when Dan says the positioning was not the issue and that the cycle path was not a major part of the case against him - yet the judge apparently convicted on the path issue -and we have no legal provision to insist on this. As far as the law is concerned - cyclists have the same rights as horse riders and pedestrians to be on the highway. All in the legal and police professions should know this (and I also know that it's covered in the syllabus for police exams as well )

So - am still a little suspicious that some factor is missing in the general equation , but still on Dan's side - even if he thinks otherwise because of some hard "cynical" questions. Al I can say is .. am trying to get him to see and be prepared for such cynicism. It will help if he can counter the sceptics in the court.

Photo in CW depicts a typical country lane.sadly subjecitve and yet underpins fact that I had a photo of this road - but not necessaily the bit in question here It is NOT the road stretch in question as there is not one sign of double whites, two lanes for the uphill and the cycle path to the left of this opposite stretch f carriageway. It does sho the white kerbside lanes by the hedgegrows on the country lane - but I would have been happier with the piece if they had depicted a similar road style to the one described. I might upload some similar -ish ones from across the family and if Andreas and his chum do take a recce - I would expect them to give me photos and a video to upload of their lycra clad bums riding the road there

Er - what seems to - er stick in the lycra guts is the fact that the judge who found Daniel "guilty of the non -existent crime of not using a cyle path is none other than


DA - DA DARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

EH?

The judge who decided that a cop could test out his car at speeds of 159 mph and a few other speeds in an urban area.

Dan - before you get upset - no - do not condone or support in reality. I did post on here at the time that our patch would take a dim view of any officer who did such a thing. We can only "test" our cars on an authorised training session here. That's the policy and a full audit is taken of the planned routes before hand. We have a duty of care to those we serve and we take it pretty darned seriously here. As do most police forces.

However, Dan - as we said - the judge saw video evidence of the officer's drive. It was at that speed for a few metres and not full out for miles. Yes - we do test out our cars. We have to. We do not know what sorrt of idiot we may have to try to stop before he does serious damage and we have to do so with our safety and the safety of others - including the yob in the stolen car as well. But - training is a serious matter in our patch. Mad Doc commented that we spend on nice cars and there is an implied criticism that our fleet would be all the larger with Fords and Vauxhalls and Skodas. Nothing wrong with any of those perfomance cars by the way - but we have a very serious biker problem and we have the fleet of cars and bikes which can outpace our brnad of idiot on our particular roads. Fully manned team out there and we do concentrate on pulling the truly dangerous.



Back to topic - Dan. We told you to get a photo of the danger involved in reachig that cycle lane and to take a photo of its normal state. This covers you. The other ace - as we have said repeatedly is the simple fact that you have no legal requirement to use any cycle lane. The fact that it's on the opposite side of the road shoul be another plus for you. Photos help clarify - am surpised you did not supply any in the first place. Please do take them. I assure you they help. After all - my colleagues to the North did use a helicopter to get hard evidence of the dangers in the "apple case" - and I made a post of my own experiment in the driveway of my home holding an apple. By posting albeit an anecdote of my own experience of the difficulty of making a very simple manoeuvre - an me a Hendon grad - I managed to at least show to this board that the decision to prosecute that woman was not
completely "mad"

So photos work! Take a few and then work with your defence to decide the best ones for your case.

The good news is that a retrial is planned for the Crown Court based on the judge;s comments - he did not judge on the finding of fact.

Hmm! We posted this up immediately and suggested Dan appealed on this basis in any case. Hope the safespeed board was helpful and we do wish Dan the very best on this.

So Dan - take photos of this road and the path. Do NOT defend on a "rights soapbox".

Do NOT confuse the court with a load of "expert" waffle.

JUST

1. Point out the LAW which say you do not have to use the path.

2. Point out the danger of reaching and riding the path with a photo

3. Calmly and without "puttin anyone in their place" - simply explain why a primary position was safer for you in a short half mile stretch and for the route you intended to follow.

4. Take a photo of the road and the lane markings. If the argument is "to the leftof the line marking the carriageway" - show a photo of this marking and point out the lunacy of this brand of logic without an "attitude of putting soemone in their place" Keep it cool and calm. It gives you a professional eaand credible edge Dan.

Please believe me when I say that my above posts were not intended to be "critical of you" - but you must accept and be prepared for some very "below the belt" questions which will try to tie you in knots.

Dan - please stick around. Do post on here. If any answers to you seem unduly "provacative" - please be aware that I am not being rude or unpleasant - but trying to get your response calm, fluent and convincing.

A nodding dog forum will indeed boost your confidence Dan - but that's all very well.

The bottom line is that you face a CPS who also likes to win. You need to be equipped for the hard and very nasty questions.


We really would like to help and we assure we are on your side - and we can help by being that horrid awkward so and so you will meet as the prosecutor.

Give us the facts as you see them. If we reply in a fashion which appear s "unsympathetic" - please read as "trying to help you by focussing your mind on your countr defence"

I do hope this will sound fair enough to you and end all the silliness on a certain cycling website as regards the Swiss, myself, Mad Doc and alll who support Paul and the AB.

For record - I try to post common sense values . safety values, and uphhold the law in all my posts here. I cannot be seen to condone law breaking - but I still feel that a sympathetic ear, an open insight into poliuve officers as normal family human beings, and a personal belief in the value of professional discretion does keep open a sense of trust in the public I try to serve and protect and respect.

Dan - very naturally I'll support my Telford colleagues in a bid to get your "witness statement", testimony on the stand fluent and conviincing.

Pelase forget that I am related to Kriss and Mike and Andreas and whatever "baggage" you have from a certain forum. On here you have me< Ted and sometimes Vrenchen .. and we are very different from the Kriss, Mike and Andreas who decided to attack a chav type troll who can post 24/7 - mostly unoriginal cut and paste in a style which fails to give any credibility to the rather sad and ineffecttice personality who can only spice up his pathetic lifestyle by equally pathetically petty posts om sites which very few take mich note of. - and yet still claim to have ridden the Tourmalet umpteen times .

Let's just say that the ABD and Paul Smith make it to the tabloid press. I cannot ever recall when any C+. CW or acf article made "headlines"

Not meant in the way some may choose to read it. But be honest..

Does C+ et al make it to the mainstream tabloids as the likes of Clarkson, Gregory, MMC, Paul?


So .. dismount high cycling saddles. We may drive and enjoy driving cars - but we all wak - l and some of us so-called " car crazed persons" enjoy a good walk, ride bikes and horses.

We want fair play and safety and justice for all whjo use our roads. We all want the truly dangerous who threaten our lives to face the correct punishing and correcting punishments as well.

We also seek to work with, negotiate, share and drive and ride with courteous COAST skills at all times too.

Franklin does show the principles of COAST in action on a diagram on page 52 in his book. He shows by way of diagram - a very significant COAST scenario. It's still COAST. As described and debated on this site

But I do hope Dan wins throuhg and if he wants to sharpen his polite replies to prosecution.. we will try to help by being the nasty thorn and stress to Dan - on assumption he will stick with us - that harsh as we may appear at times - we are really trying to help him.

_________________
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.

IG's advice... so good he thought he'd give it 3 times (at least)

Ja - he can be a right old sledgehammer when he choose to be

But all the cycle mags this week had the same lurid und emotive "rights issue" headline that Dan was "found guilty of riding on a road". It even got a mention in "Enjoy Your Bike"... which does tell us as family to choose und judge some of these paths "with care"

Well he was - if you take the judge's sum up und finding of "fact" which was allegedly not part of the argument but part of the argument when the original story first appear on the cycling sites und Dan's own "blog."

You need to get a few reasoned eyebrows from Joe public at large raising in "what the on the story.

Has Dan been to the tabloids. I have not seen this story in the Waily Sexpress - or have I missed it? He should do - along with photos - but best way to get the average Waily reader on your side ist to approach from angle of "bully- jobsworthy- arrogantly- terminally stupid cop" There are ways to get support - nicht? You play the subtle game! Tabloids in question already showed up the stupidity of some of the so-called "cycling facilities" - so highlighting the path's state und the logic of the road more widely get the wider opinion of reasoned population - und it help establish in the wider mind set out there that cyclists do have a reasoned logic for daring to move from the "gutter" Und need better planning und maintenance of these "facilities" as well. But you do with subtle "cunning"

Pity he did not do this first - charges get dropped if public opinion gets outraged enough (speeding ambulance with a liver organ on board, the man with the pregnant wife und the scamera, und the bloke with the "dangerous parts of low screen wash when car parked up outside his house" - all come to mind) .

Unfortunately he has been convicted already und we now need to overturn the conviction. I do not think case necessarily sub judice as has already appeared in cycling press. Perhaps CTC should drum up a wider support by highlighting in the main press.

CW plugs for donations to the CDF fund - they have a regular STO from this family group by the way - we upped with a slight top up this month to symbolise a support. We agree that there has to be a means for defending those in trouble for the apparently stupid charges. This one - only have Dan's side und the views of his pals (mostly militant variety) on a cycling forum. Do not know the exact case against him und I do not think he knows either from his posts. Ist a bizarre logic to me. The path ist a "red herring" und the judge was out of order. Hence the retrial on this was very rightly granted on point of Law on this.

Would say defence this time in Crown Court should drop the "rights" attitude, und just argue that the style of riding was appropriate to the particular condition und advise that Dan does not "put the prosecutor in his or her place" this time around (their job ist to trip und trick you Dan - und your team should advise on potential question und replies und manner of replies as well) - but stays cool und calm - polite und factual in replies. I would perhaps mention that in a half mile stretch on a busy road - I would need to get into my lane for a right turn at the roundabout in good time - which ist what he did. You just keep to reasoned reply only to the charges.

Ist a funny case as it seem "subjective" in nature of how the charge brought in first place - or so it come across.

But advice ist advice und sometimes circumstance dictate action which even conflict with "ethic of good practice" We know RoadCraft und Motor CycleCraft with a similar familiarity to CycleCraft. We read und read again. But as drivers und motorbikers und cyclists - we also know that just sometimes a circumstance will mean a slight change of plan or a bend of rules if safety dictate to us. (Had exchange with Lieber von once on PH SP&L over my not aborting an overtake which took me above the 70 mph lolly because numpty I overtook decided to accelerate und "try to race" as I passed the front wing. Was in Jag - one feather pressure und he respond firmly to 80 mph within less than second ) I am not saying that Dan was wrong to follow the good practice - but you could get this sort of mealy mouthed garbage of "not law but general advice which has to be applied with reason to cicumstance" from the other side. Boil down to which side judge und jury believe on the day so - Dan - sit with lawyer und get things as "airtight und bombproof" as possible.


und Dan's team need to address the actual nub of their case without banging on about "rights" because of the book of established good practical advice.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Well - the other lot seem to whine on for pages about how much "the authorities have it in for cyclists and want them off the road!"

Blimey - what with drivers asking us "why don't we go chase real criminals" and cyclists now accusing us of "wanting them off the road" - I think I should give up trying to help and retire to Provence or somewhere just as nice and chilled out. (I hear they do a nice line in claret and doughnuts have some rather "interesting" fillings )



If we do manage to cop a few baddies -all hell is let loose cos we found out in time that holidaymakers were in danger and we inconvenienced them a bit whilst we tried to save their lives - and woe betide us if my lads and colleagues make just one little mistaken arrest in all this.


Sometimes you know Joe Public simply sickens me!

They should try doing our job for one hour.


They would not survive it!

I am sorry if one policeman in Telford misread a situation. Still have some reservations as our team is trusted to deliver a responsible and professional decision when out there on the job. I cannot quite fathom a Shropshire colleague getting things so wrong - and CPS backing it. But occasionally - perhaps too "occasionally often" - police and courts can all get it wrong and I hope Ed take some of the comments made constructively as intended.


But the courts should decide and I think Ted's hit nail on head -attitudes in court by defendant and his defence banging on about "rights". Not the place

_________________
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.