Nuxx:F899c8ba-759b-4704-9d99-fa881058b68e@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:59:07 -0800 (PST) References: <6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>   <62blb3F22ueorU2@mid.individual.net>  <62db5sF22j9p4U1@mid.individual.net>    Lines: 61 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203973147 9970 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2008 20:59:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4532 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:641802

On Feb 25, 7:14 pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:32:40 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar > > > >  wrote: > >On Feb 24, 4:47 pm, Rob Morley  wrote: > >> In article <62db5sF22j9p...@mid.individual.net>, Adam Lea > >> asr...@yahoo.co.uk says... > > >> > "Tom Crispin"  wrote in message > >> >news:gaa2s3tiogeknlduusgbneic8ehsa9famp@4ax.com... > >> > > Certainly that is true of those with the skills and competence to > >> > > cycle on tricky sections of roads. But what of those without the > >> > > skills and competence? Should they be forced onto the carriageway > >> > > with fast moving traffic when there's an empty or almost empty footway > >> > > alongside. > > >> > They should get some cycle training, or find an alternative route. > > >> In the given case I think it's pretty reasonable to cycle on the > >> pavement as long as there aren't any pedestrians - units on industrial > >> estates tend to be set back from the road, with good visibility around > >> access drives and building entrances, and the Home Office advice not to > >> prosecute should be followed. That's very different from the typical > >> suburban/urban pavement where there are numerous property accesses with > >> poor visibility, tight corners and more pedestrians. > > >So you're happy for cyclists to break the law when it's "reasonable", > >but not motorists? > > The police won't usually issue motorists with a ticket if they drive > at up to 10% above the posted limit.

Not usually, but they could, and no doubt the trolls here would be quite happy about it.

> And if they did, the motorist > would stand a good chance of having the ticket cancelled on appeal or > by judicial review.

Absolute, 100% rubbish I'm afraid. The ACPO guidelines are just that. And BTW, it's 10% + 2mph. Although strangely, Spin-"I haven't taken my tablets"-drift won't have a go at you for "not knowing traffic law", he only does that to motorist advocates for some reason which I just can't imagine.

> And what of all those motorists who stop forward of the first stop > line after lights have changed to red, preventing cyclists from taking > advantage of the ASL reservoir. There has NEVER been a single > motorist charged with such an offence.

And that (assuming it's true) proves what exactly, in general? There are many here who will without fail say "Good, serves them right" when a motorist is punished for breaking a law, however marginal the infringement, and however unreasonable some may find the punishment. But those same people will not automatically say "Good, serves them right" when a cyclist is punished for breaking a law. They are happy to apply common sense and latitude to cyclists' infringements but not to motorists'. I would like one of them to tell me why.