Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Sep 29, 2020 05:55

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: ed
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:34 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:17
Posts: 2
Whether you continue the fight against a ludicrous, inane decision is up to you of course, I really hope you will carry on, this is farcical, an absurd, recklessly stupid decision.

Some dumb cycle lanes:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.u ... -the-month

Those who wish to support the fight can make a donation here:

To donate money to the Cyclists' Defence Fund, go to

www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk

A cyclist was killed on Euston Road two days ago, by a lorry driver (who has been charged), she was in the cycle lane, no link I'm afraid as it was only in the Evening Standard who quoted the witless Tory transport spokesman as demanding that cyclists are seperated from vehicles when the reality is that the more cyclists who use the roads the safer the roads become:



http://www.bikeforall.net/linkcat.php?c ... inkOut=694




Conclusion:

A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.


This decision flies in the face of common sense and is a symptom of the anti-cycling campaign led by a compliant media and people like Clarkson who claims he will run over any cyclist in his way:


The wit and wisdom of Jeremy Clarkson;

"IN the wake of the London bombs we're told that many commuters are now
switching to bicycles...

I offer five handy hints to those setting out on a bike for
the first time.



Do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because if I'm
behind you, I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under
my wheels."



If this isn't advocating murder then what is? Or is it supposed to be 'funny'?? How come its acceptable and 'funny' to call for the crushing of cyclists who get in the way but something to be 'ashamed of' to call this twunt a twunt?


Or how about convicted drunk driver Nigel Havers declaring "war" on cyclists who share the road with him?

What the hell is going on?

All we are trying to do is get to work safely, where is this rampant hatred coming from?


Good luck Ed, I look forward to this travesty being overturned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ed
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
:welcome: Galaxy7.


galaxy7 wrote:
The wit and wisdom of Jeremy Clarkson;

I think (hope) that most people realise that Clarkson is not being serious.


galaxy7 wrote:
All we are trying to do is get to work safely, where is this rampant hatred coming from?

indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 23:13 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
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. 8-) ) Bless 'er! :lol:

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. :yikes: 25 mph! :yikes:


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 :roll:

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. :roll: 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 :roll: Lot of them complained on here and elsewhere in the past :roll:

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 :lol:
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. :roll:


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. :roll:

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.

_________________
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: Fri Aug 11, 2006 07:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
In Gear wrote:
It was up to the defence Counsel to prove that the lane was not really that safe

there's only one way to answer that. Bullshit. Either cyclists have the RIGHT to ride on the road or they don't. It matters not one iota that there was a cycle lane - even if it was right next to the road in question - as it is not compulsory to use them. This case is exactly what was mentioned as the danger of the new wording of the HC. The same wording that I recall people on here saying was nothing to get worked up about.

As for placing OTHER road users in danger - nobody is forcing them to overtake. If I had a pound for every c*nt that overtook dangerously I would be extremely rich right now. The usual thing is to insist on overtaking next to pedestrian islands rather than waiting the half second it takes to get past them - and if you move to primary going through these they'll sit on your back wheel revving their engines until they can blast past and drive furiously up to the queue of traffic stopped at the red light 100m up the road.
However, overtaking busses at all costs is the other favourite. One did so in full view of a police vehicle yesterday - he crossed to the wrong side of the road to overtake a bus, driving straight at me, giving me the option of swerving into the gutter or becoming a hood ornament. . The coppers knew the overtake wasn't on as they stayed behind the bus watching the action. Needless to say they did absolutely nothing about the dangerous driving no doubt because, like yourself (or otherwise you'd be supporting Ed's right to ride on the road), they think cyclists should all be on psycle paths rather than disturbing the fine upstanding motorists of this country.
Next thing you'll be telling us that "prudent women" should wear burqas in order not to encourage rapists.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: NO!
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 08:18 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:17
Posts: 2
Content from suspected previously banned poster deleted.

Galaxy 7, if you are a genuine poster, please send me sufficient information by email to verify your identity, including landline telephone number.

my email is psmith@safespeed.org.uk

:ss:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 08:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
In Gear wrote:
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 :roll:


and where was he to have pulled over on a single lane carraigeway?.....
it wasnt even a long section as i understand it, multiple lanes & plenty of room at either end.

(i do often consider pulling in where safe & convenient but usually no need as i've been muscled past long before i get the chance!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
I have been using an alternative route since the judgement (which has it's own problems not to mention adding a further half mile to my journey) because the shared use cycle/pedistrian alongside that road on which I was stopped is actually worse than I thought.

The road maybe NSL for the moment, but that means it's unrestricted as oppose to any speed limit applying. There is going to be a speed limit applied to that road shortly as part of a speed limit review the local council is conduction. This speed limit will probably reflect that the road is in a town, and therefore not 'open' road, only half a mile long, and between two 30 mph zones.

It is arguable that the road itself is badly designed. Going up hill there is provision of a crawler lane and an overtaking lane. Coming down the hill a single lane. There are double solid white lines seperating the uphill and down hill flows of traffic. The delay on this road going up hill does not come so much from slow moving traffic (at it is only a moderately trafficked road) but from the roundabout at the top. It would be much better for the road to have one wider lane in either direction making it much easier for motorised and non-motorised traffic to share.

The delay going up hill is not caused by slower moving road users (although it is handy to have the crawler lane as cyclists can ride as slow as they like up the hill without inconveniencing motorists)

I'm a bit tired of the idle speculation from people who were neither on the road that day nor in the court. To re-emphasize, my positioning was not the problem, but the fact that I was on the road.

I used to reach 40 mph day after day on this road before I started slowing for traffic either negotiating a right hand turn near the bottom or the roundabout at the bottom. At most, I used to get one or two cars passing me and without fail, I would be waiting behind their rear bumper in the queue for the roundabout.

On windy days, I used to give the road a miss because I would then have inconvenienced drivers.

Which is beside the point really, as cyclists do have the right to use the road unless they are expressively prohibited from a particular stretch.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
ed_o_brain wrote:
I'm a bit tired of the idle speculation from people who were neither on the road that day nor in the court. To re-emphasize, my positioning was not the problem, but the fact that I was on the road.


So why did you need Frankin as an expert witness?

Are you SURE your defence team was competent?

(damn serious questions...)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
ed_o_brain wrote:
I'm a bit tired of the idle speculation from people who were neither on the road that day nor in the court. To re-emphasize, my positioning was not the problem, but the fact that I was on the road.


well if you wont be drawn into discussion on it.. then we've not much choice :wink:

i note galaxy7 has been edited out, would also like to know the source for the apparent inside line presented in that post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
Why has Galaxy7 been banned?

I'm referring to the judge's summing up. I wasn't found guilty by the judge on account of my positioning, even if it is why the police conducted the stop check.

As stated earlier in this thread, I was not riding in the primary position.

I wasn't riding in the primary or secondary position, but between the two. I dropped into the secondary position as vehicles began to overtake, and I was ready to move into primary position if there were any vehicles coming in the opposite direction to deter overtaking.

All of this is acedemic given the judges reasons for his decision.

The defence was very competent.


Ed_m, there is a world of difference between asking specific questions to obtain fact rather speculating.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
ed_o_brain wrote:
Why has Galaxy7 been banned?


Because the admin team here believe that he's a poster previously banned for posting libellous content.

We can and will restore his access in a flash if he provides adequate evidence of identity.

ed_o_brain wrote:
I'm referring to the judge's summing up. I wasn't found guilty by the judge on account of my positioning, even if it is why the police conducted the stop check.

[...]

The defence was very competent.


But with a carriageway width of 10'6", position is irrelevant - as you said yourself - so I repeat, why did you need Franklin as an expert witness?

I'm asking because it makes no sense to me - yet it happened - and it may be an important contributory factor in losing a case you should have won.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
ed_o_brain wrote:
I'm referring to the judge's summing up.


which i haven't seen.... unless you have a link to it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
Mr. Franklin is an expert on cycling infrastructure, thus he was able to comment on the cycle path, as well give evidence on other aspects of the case.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
ed_o_brain wrote:
Mr. Franklin is an expert on cycling infrastructure, thus he was able to comment on the cycle path, as well give evidence on other aspects of the case.


You're not giving me much to work with, and believe me, I'm trying to help.

Do you think the Judge may have been mislead or confused by a lot of irrelevent evidence and discussion about positioning?

It seems to me that the defence team only had to describe your right to be on the road for the case to be won, and I'm just trying to find out exactly why it was lost. Frankly I'm baffled because the judgment seems so bizarre.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:55 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:41
Posts: 3
SafeSpeed wrote:
ed_o_brain wrote:
Mr. Franklin is an expert on cycling infrastructure, thus he was able to comment on the cycle path, as well give evidence on other aspects of the case.


You're not giving me much to work with, and believe me, I'm trying to help.

Do you think the Judge may have been misled or confused by a lot of irrelevent evidence and discussion about positioning?

It seems to me that the defence team only had to describe your right to be on the road for the case to be won, and I'm just trying to find out exactly why it was lost. Frankly I'm baffled because the judgment seems so bizarre.


There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I read a lot of stuff from the original charge and a couple of reports from people the courtroom, hopefully I can clear that up.

The charge was inconsiderate cycling. This was based on road positioning. The police argued that ed should have been cycling to the left of the white line marking the edge of the carriageway. That's why the defence set out to prove the road position was correct.

In court, the prosecution conceded that even if ed had been cycling in the gutter, motor vehicles would still have to cross the double whites to overtake. Interestingly, the prosecution stated in court that motorists were "forced" to break the law, rather than forced to slow down - I've not heard it's compulsory to overtake even where not legal, but I digress....

With the prosecution having failed to prove their point, the judge took it on himself to explore the possibility that ed could have used a cycle lane. When he was told the cycle lane was covered in glass and "dog poo" he stated that made no difference, ed should have used it and by not doing so he was guilty of being inconsiderate.

As this wasn't the prosecution's argument, it seems the defence was caught unawares and thinking on its feet. It did not have full details of the cycle path, etc, because that was not relevant to the road position argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 13:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
iakobski wrote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I read a lot of stuff from the original charge and a couple of reports from people the courtroom, hopefully I can clear that up.
[...]
As this wasn't the prosecution's argument, it seems the defence was caught unawares and thinking on its feet. It did not have full details of the cycle path, etc, because that was not relevant to the road position argument.


[my emboldening]

Ahh. Thank you. That makes perfect sense. It's an unfortunate fact of life that such 'ambushes' are the deciding factor in a significant proportion of court cases.

Have we genuinely got to the bottom of it now?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 13:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
SafeSpeed wrote:
iakobski wrote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I read a lot of stuff from the original charge and a couple of reports from people the courtroom, hopefully I can clear that up.
[...]
As this wasn't the prosecution's argument, it seems the defence was caught unawares and thinking on its feet. It did not have full details of the cycle path, etc, because that was not relevant to the road position argument.


[my emboldening]

Ahh. Thank you. That makes perfect sense. It's an unfortunate fact of life that such 'ambushes' are the deciding factor in a significant proportion of court cases.

Have we genuinely got to the bottom of it now?


The defence were aware of the cycle path and it was covered in Mr. Franklin's expert witness report that was before the trial. The judge did not accept the arguments for not using it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 14:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
ed_o_brain wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
iakobski wrote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I read a lot of stuff from the original charge and a couple of reports from people the courtroom, hopefully I can clear that up.
[...]
As this wasn't the prosecution's argument, it seems the defence was caught unawares and thinking on its feet. It did not have full details of the cycle path, etc, because that was not relevant to the road position argument.


[my emboldening]

Ahh. Thank you. That makes perfect sense. It's an unfortunate fact of life that such 'ambushes' are the deciding factor in a significant proportion of court cases.

Have we genuinely got to the bottom of it now?


The defence were aware of the cycle path and it was covered in Mr. Franklin's expert witness report that was before the trial. The judge did not accept the arguments for not using it.


So the defence wasn't caught unawares?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 14:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
SafeSpeed wrote:
ed_o_brain wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
iakobski wrote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I read a lot of stuff from the original charge and a couple of reports from people the courtroom, hopefully I can clear that up.
[...]
As this wasn't the prosecution's argument, it seems the defence was caught unawares and thinking on its feet. It did not have full details of the cycle path, etc, because that was not relevant to the road position argument.


[my emboldening]

Ahh. Thank you. That makes perfect sense. It's an unfortunate fact of life that such 'ambushes' are the deciding factor in a significant proportion of court cases.

Have we genuinely got to the bottom of it now?


The defence were aware of the cycle path and it was covered in Mr. Franklin's expert witness report that was before the trial. The judge did not accept the arguments for not using it.


So the defence wasn't caught unawares?


No

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 14:41 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:41
Posts: 3
Ed, can you clear this up then?

Was it in the prosecution's skeleton argument that you should have been on the path?


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

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 : 0.352s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]