johnsher wrote:
In Gear wrote:
Road was NSL. It was not a narrow road. Guy was in a primary position - but at 30 mph on this road. There are a couple of lay-bys somewhere along and the Highway Code rule - Wildy's fave rule - (Ironically she posted up the thread over the weekend and stated that 144/145 are her faves.
) Bless 'er!
Rule 145 does say that you do not hold up traffic and pull over to allow others to overtake at first safest opportunity.
I rather think this was the issue here.
so are the police going to start pulling over and fining EVERYONE who's holding up the general flow of traffic on such roads (and WHO NEVER, EVER PULL INTO LAYBYs TO LET THE MILE LONG QUEUES BEHIND THEM PAST)? The 40mph everywhere drivers, arctics, farm vehicles etc or is it just cyclists the police want removed from the roads?
]once rather famously or infamously prosecuted an old dear for holding up traffic on an NSL dual.
25 mph!
Yep - had the odd word with the odd tractor driver too - but you know - in a rural area - we do - er have 'em around . Most do pull over as and when. Obviously there will be stretches of road where this just ain't possible
Arctics have a slight problem - speed limited to 40 mph.. tachos.. A point picked up by Wildy. I doubt if the guy would have been pulled if one of these ws behind him.
Not sure I would have enjoyed riding with one of these up my rear end though!
johnsher wrote:
THAT is the issue here - and as I've said above these people cause far more delays (not to mention danger) on the roads than a single cyclist on a half mile stretch of road but I've never seen or heard of any of them getting fined.
Arctics do get fined
Lot of them complained on here and elsewhere in the past
We have had threads galore over the apparent stupidity of limiting to this low speed and they apparently are a good earner on the A66 near the Mad Cats - per the old Cumbrian forum. Andreas (posting as "Tiger" was on form on that thread as I recall
Quote:
In Gear wrote:
Case boils down to whether a prudent rider would have used that lane
IG, it saddens me to see you post rubbish like this. Cyclists are not obliged to use paths, prudent or otherwise. THAT IS THE LAW. NO QUESTIONS.
But that was the case as seen by CPS and by the judge in his decision. The CPS issue seemed to be
1. Chap was holding up traffic.
2. There was no need for him to do this - there was a cycle lane.
3. Given the traffic situation on this road - would it have been more prudent to have used the cycle lane?
The defence was
A. He was in a primary riding position
B. Cycle Craft and IG's notes say this is acceptable if there rider is in full flow of traffic and where he needs to be seen and prominent in case of danger.
[i]Only because this was a fast road - he could hardly be described as being "within the normal flow of traffic" Thus it failed
I have received a e-mail from Andreas over what he thinks may also have gone wrong for the guy.
Andreas - lawyer wally - and another Mr Loop Hole type as if there is one - he manipulates it wrote:
[snip for family stuff]
Have taken a quick look at the threads on all obvious sites relating to this. Emotions naturally running high. Par for the course - but that's a part of the problem. Law does not do emotion. It does do "finding of fact - and bases judgements on precedents and interpretation of Statute (ratio decidendi and obiter dicta") in UK.
You know well enough, Charleyboy, that I keep some "trade secrets" from the likes of you - but if you want - feel free to paste me into a reply. Not sure it will go down well. But Ed was nice to me and my associate "rebels" on that site when we blitzed the trolleyman,
Of course - I cannot give an accurate comment as I don't know exactly what the other lot had on the guy. If defending - I would have some privileged knowledge, of course, as they'd disclose the evidence for me to argue against.
However, the whole thing strikes me as playing too much on Franklin and hitting the judge with too much information on this one aspect.
You keep it short and simple.
I tend to view the judge as if explaining a set of facts to a 5 year old. Too much information or harping emotively and he'll just stop listening. Basically Ed did not have to say much. The other had to prove his action was "reckless or inconsiderate"
All he had to do was say in answer to the cycle lane issue was that it involved crossing at a dangerous point in the road, was full of debris and just submiited a couple of photos to show this is fact and nt a speculation.
All he had to do in answer to the "charge of causing obstruction" and showing he was NOT being unreasonable was point out the width of the road and photo showing clearly that there were few lay-bys and that the secondary could have caused a similar breach of the double white rule.
Too much information and defence perhaps?
I think too much focussing on "what Franklin says" blurred the defence line. You have to keep it simple, plain cut and quality in argument.
I would not have even touched the Cycle Craft quote as I could not have argued "in normal flow of traffic" in this instance . Other side would have hammered me on this because limit was NSL. - as I suspect was the case.
I reckon too much emotion and too much focus on a cycling expert who admittedly writes sound advice - but that this is advice and a subjective opinion which is not the black and white of the law. As you know - I've won cases despite what the Highway Code advises in the past too. I have used any loop hole going too. But hey- you are paid to do your job and I am paid to do mine. We've had this argument before Charleyboy. You might as well post that we do have "fights".
As regards the letter of the law - You find a loop hole in the law. Anything lacking in routine or normal procedure for example. You hammer it to get a doubt. Even a slight doubt can win a case. That's how Freeman does it. But you do not over cook and I think that was a part of it. Hitting the D J with Franklin fudged the issue to him.
Case was about whether or not the rider was inconsiderate and causing a danger to others by his action. A photo of the route to the lane, the lane itself, any lack of lay-bys and presence of large vehicles in the slow moving line behind would have presented a simple but effective defence - based on the "facts" as I understand from this thread.
CTC does a fine job of campaigning for better facilities - but need to drop the emotion and if they fight cases like this in the future - they do need to drop the emotions and fasten only on how to put a dent in the letter of the law
I do intend riding this next time I visit Jess and Maril. I am intrigued as to how dangerous the lane and how and why Ed had this result. I have some free time towards the end of this month.
I have taken the liberty of posting up Andreas's take on this as he does to manage to undo all my hard work..We arrest - his lot look for a chink in our paperwork.
johnsher wrote:
I wonder about the next person who causes an accident on an A-Road. Are you going to haul them in front of the magistrate because a "prudent driver" would have been using the motorway that was only a few minutes extra drive away?
We would judge and decide to refer to CPS based on the evidence and situation.
This case seems to revolve around the road positionm Franklin and whether or not a "prudent" rider would have used the cycle lane. It is not me saying this. I tis how this case appears.
There was a cycle lane. The officer, the CPS and the judge seemed to think the road positioning placed other road users in danger and seemed to argue that a prudent rider would have used the lane. It was up to the defence Counsel to prove that the lane was not really that safe to use and up to defence to show that under the circumstance o width, lack of lay-by and state of the surface near the kerb-side that the primary was not in itself unreasonable.
John - I thought I made it plain in my post that I was saying, why in my opinion the defence failed and Andreas (riff raff Swiss) seems to have a similar idea too.,
In some ways I think there were failings in the defence. I am not being unsympathetic to Ed. I am simply stating why I think his defence failed him and I wish he had posted here in the first place.
Sure I might have asked some hard questions - but no harder than the prosecution would have asked. I would have pm' d to say that any "roughness" would be in line with what he'd face in court and this would have helped him state his case without emotion getting in the way.
As you recall - read the first story in C+ magazine and had an exchange with BC. If you recall I said that must be more to this than we were told - but then it would have been sub judice anyway.
However, Ed has since posted up his own take on this and if his version is true - then I'd say too much focus on the irrelevant and not enough on the relevant issue which CPS was suggesting - which boiled down to question of road position in the circumstance - and whether or not a prudent rider would have used the lane.
Of course - I think if Ed had posted on here (or motor site first) - then he would have received less biased advice. Not unsympathetic and if I decided to be not so friendly on reply - I would have sent pm to explain that the purpose was to get that the facts and statement precise in court situation. Courts in cross examination will try to trip you up.. make you contradict yourself.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Galaxy7.
