Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Would you warn other cyclists of enforcement ahead of them?
58 views
Skip to first unread message
M Wicks
Oct 6, 2012, 12:49:17 PM10/6/12
to
If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
not warn them?
If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
not warn them?
If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
Simon Mason
Oct 6, 2012, 3:57:02 PM10/6/12
to
drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, they get
enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
an idiot as far as I am concerned. The only time I will warn a driver
of a speed trap is when I am out on the bike and a speeding driver is
heading towards me clearly exceeding the limit. I will then point
behind me and shout "speed trap" at which point they thank me and
slow down to the limit. There is no speed trap at all, but just the
thread of there being one will get them to obey the law and I like to
think that I have done my bit for road safety. So the answer is that I
warn drivers of non existent speed traps, but not real ones.
--
Simon Mason
Rob Morley
Oct 6, 2012, 3:57:17 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:49:17 +0100
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
> at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
> who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
> cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
> not warn them?
>
> If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
No to both - they might learn from the experience.
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
> at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
> who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
> cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
> not warn them?
>
> If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would
> condemn?
Probably not as bad, as they're mainly putting themselves at risk.
> Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would
> condemn?
Owen Dunn
Oct 6, 2012, 3:57:43 PM10/6/12
to
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> writes:
> If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light
> jumping at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then
> nabbing those who contravened the signals, then would you
> subsequently warn other cyclists going past you towards the
> junction? And why would you warn/ not warn them?
I probably wouldn't, because I suspect a punishment from the police is
> If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light
> jumping at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then
> nabbing those who contravened the signals, then would you
> subsequently warn other cyclists going past you towards the
> junction? And why would you warn/ not warn them?
more likely to have a positive long-term effect on their behaviour
than a disapproving warning from me. Also, I'd gain some satisfaction
from them getting a small amount of comeuppance after all the times
I've had to pass the same jumper again and again...
> If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
about unlitness. Also, of course, any attempt to tell anyone that
they're cycling the wrong way (towards me), or without lights, or over
a stop line, gets met with a blank look or a torrent of abuse anyway
so I rarely bother.
> Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
operating heavy machinery are by their nature more problematic than
bad things done by people operating egg whisks.
(S)
Eleanor Blair
Oct 6, 2012, 3:59:45 PM10/6/12
to
M Wicks wrote:
>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>not warn them?
My first thought is "no". I'm not sure how I'd go about warning them
>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>not warn them?
anyway, and I certainly don't think I have any responsibility to do so.
I think police time could be better spent on other things, but anyone
caught breaking the law is fair game - if you don't want to get caught
don't do it.
My second thought is to wonder why on earth I would be *expecting* any
particular cyclist heading towards the entrapped junction would *need*
warning in the first place. I certainly would be thoroughly offended if
anyone tried to warn *me* not to jump the lights, since I don't do that
anyway.
--
ele...@the-blairs.co.uk http://lnr.livejournal.com/
heidt...@gmail.com
Oct 6, 2012, 7:27:24 PM10/6/12
to
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:57:03 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
>
> drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, they get
>
> enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
>
> published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
>
> are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
>
> an idiot as far as I am concerned.
Haven't been aware of drivers warning each other when it's fixed camera
>
> I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
>
> drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, they get
>
> enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
>
> published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
>
> are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
>
> an idiot as far as I am concerned.
locations. It commonly happens with mobile units - police vans and officers
with handheld units. Personally I wouldn't warn another driver, and would welcome hidden cameras and many more mobile units. There would be the
usual moans about 'revenue raising' to which the answer is, if that's what you
think it is then it's a tax you can choose whether or not you have to pay.
Danny Colyer
Oct 6, 2012, 7:27:35 PM10/6/12
to
On 06/10/2012 17:49, M Wicks wrote:
> If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
> at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
> who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
> cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
> not warn them?
No. I would welcome the enforcement and would not wish to impede it.
> If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
> at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
> who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
> cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
> not warn them?
> If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Adam Funk
Oct 6, 2012, 7:28:43 PM10/6/12
to
On 2012-10-06, Simon Mason wrote:
> I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
> drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, they get
> enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
> published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
> are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
> an idiot as far as I am concerned. The only time I will warn a driver
> of a speed trap is when I am out on the bike and a speeding driver is
> heading towards me clearly exceeding the limit. I will then point
> behind me and shout "speed trap" at which point they thank me and
> slow down to the limit. There is no speed trap at all, but just the
> thread of there being one will get them to obey the law and I like to
> think that I have done my bit for road safety. So the answer is that I
> warn drivers of non existent speed traps, but not real ones.
Ha, that's a good idea.
> I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
> drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, they get
> enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
> published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
> are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
> an idiot as far as I am concerned. The only time I will warn a driver
> of a speed trap is when I am out on the bike and a speeding driver is
> heading towards me clearly exceeding the limit. I will then point
> behind me and shout "speed trap" at which point they thank me and
> slow down to the limit. There is no speed trap at all, but just the
> thread of there being one will get them to obey the law and I like to
> think that I have done my bit for road safety. So the answer is that I
> warn drivers of non existent speed traps, but not real ones.
Adam Funk
Oct 6, 2012, 7:29:52 PM10/6/12
to
On 2012-10-06, Eleanor Blair wrote:
> M Wicks wrote:
>>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>>not warn them?
>
> My first thought is "no". I'm not sure how I'd go about warning them
> anyway, and I certainly don't think I have any responsibility to do so.
Same here.
> M Wicks wrote:
>>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>>not warn them?
>
> My first thought is "no". I'm not sure how I'd go about warning them
> anyway, and I certainly don't think I have any responsibility to do so.
> I think police time could be better spent on other things, but anyone
> caught breaking the law is fair game - if you don't want to get caught
> don't do it.
law, as long as they're doig it in all directions.
> My second thought is to wonder why on earth I would be *expecting* any
> particular cyclist heading towards the entrapped junction would *need*
> warning in the first place. I certainly would be thoroughly offended if
> anyone tried to warn *me* not to jump the lights, since I don't do that
> anyway.
To my amazement he turned his head away, saying under his breath: "I
don't talk to light jumpers."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/sep/24/furious-cyclist-andrew-mitchell
Message has been deleted
Simon Mason
Oct 7, 2012, 8:22:27 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 7, 12:28�am, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-06, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> > I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
> > drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, �they get
> > enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
> > published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
> > are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
> > an idiot as far as I am concerned. The only time I will warn a driver
> > of a speed trap is when I am out on the bike and a speeding driver is
> > heading towards me clearly exceeding the limit. I will then point
> > behind me and shout "speed trap" at which point �they thank me and
> > slow down to the limit. There is no speed trap at all, but just the
> > threat of there being one will get them to obey the law and I like to
> On 2012-10-06, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> > I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
> > drivers. As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, �they get
> > enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
> > published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
> > are warning signs all over the place so any driver who gets nabbed is
> > an idiot as far as I am concerned. The only time I will warn a driver
> > of a speed trap is when I am out on the bike and a speeding driver is
> > heading towards me clearly exceeding the limit. I will then point
> > behind me and shout "speed trap" at which point �they thank me and
> > slow down to the limit. There is no speed trap at all, but just the
> > think that I have done my bit for road safety. So the answer is that I
> > warn drivers of non existent speed traps, but not real ones.
>
> Ha, that's a good idea.
I find that I end up flashing oncoming cars with my Six Pack front
> > warn drivers of non existent speed traps, but not real ones.
>
> Ha, that's a good idea.
light about a dozen times on my ride home at 2230 after work which
have missing headlights or fog lights blazing. The sheer number of
these "one eyed monsters" puts the odd cyclist with no lights on (I
see very few) into perspective.
--
Simon Mason
Dr Zoidberg
Oct 7, 2012, 8:24:06 AM10/7/12
to
"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e9ae844-a7e2-4abe-bd34-
> I would never warn anyone of a police trap be they cyclists or
> drivers.
I might - it depends on the circumstances.
> drivers.
Some speed enforcement is done at entirely sensible locations where you most
definitely shouldn't be speeding. Others is not.
There is a quiet dual carriageway near me that used to have a 70mph limit
and was perfectly safe at that speed. A few years back some teenagers in a
stolen car crashed and died (while well in excess of the limit) so it was
then seen as a dangerous road and had the limit dropped to 50. It's
basically the only response available to a fatality but all it really does
is inconvenience law abiding motorists who weren't at undue risk anyway.
If I see the camera van there I will warn oncoming cars, but if I saw it in
a 30mph built up area I probably wouldn't.
> As far as speed traps for drivers are concerned, they get
> enough warnings as it is - the locations of the "traps" are widely
> published in the press and elsewhere, they appear on SatNavs and there
> are warning signs all over the place
Others using mobile vans shift around far more and use "new" locations on a
regular basis.
*Some* planned police enforcement is publicized in the local papers but
that's far from all of it.
> so any driver who gets nabbed is an idiot as far as I am concerned.
--
Alex
Simon Mason
Oct 7, 2012, 11:11:03 AM10/7/12
to
On 7 Oct, 13:24, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some locations are well known.
> Others using mobile vans shift around far more and use "new" locations on
> a
> regular basis.
>
> *Some* planned police enforcement is publicized in the local papers but
> that's far from all of it.
>
> > so any driver who gets nabbed is an idiot as far as I am concerned.
>
> For speeding or being caught?
> --
> Alex
They both go hand in hand. If you don't speed you have no fear of being
>
> Some locations are well known.
> Others using mobile vans shift around far more and use "new" locations on
> a
> regular basis.
>
> *Some* planned police enforcement is publicized in the local papers but
> that's far from all of it.
>
> > so any driver who gets nabbed is an idiot as far as I am concerned.
>
> For speeding or being caught?
> --
> Alex
caught.
A few months ago I was driving at 60mph and entered a village with a 30mph
limit and so slowed down to 30mph on the button.
My wife who was in need of a WC begged me to hurry up, but I refused and
stuck to the limit.
A few hundred yards down the road was a marked police speed camera van but
as I was not speeding I had no fear of getting a fine.
In the same way, I never cycle through red lights or ride on pavements so
have no worries about getting fined there.
The only law I knowingly break is that I have no pedal reflectors, but I
have never heard of anyone being done for riding without them, in any case,
my lights are very bright and I have nine of them all told.
--
Simon Mason
D.M. Procida
Oct 7, 2012, 6:19:35 PM10/7/12
to
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
What I do in such cases is start screaming (and if I'm in a car I lean
> If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
out of the window) "It's the fucking pigs! It's the fucking pigs!"
That's if I don't take a piece out of them with my bike pump. That
teaches them a lesson if nothing else does.
Daniele
thirty-six
Oct 7, 2012, 6:21:15 PM10/7/12
to
On 7 Oct, 16:11, "Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 7 Oct, 13:24, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Some locations are well known.
> > Others using mobile vans shift around far more and use "new" locations on
> > a
> > regular basis.
>
> > *Some* planned police enforcement is publicized in the local papers but
> > that's far from all of it.
>
> > > so any driver who gets nabbed is an idiot as far as I am concerned.
>
> > For speeding or being caught?
> > --
> > Alex
>
> They both go hand in hand. If you don't speed you have no fear of being
> caught.
> A few months ago I was driving at 60mph and entered a village with a 30mph
> limit and so slowed down to 30mph on the button.
Do you typically tear-arse through a village if there is no such
> On 7 Oct, 13:24, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Some locations are well known.
> > Others using mobile vans shift around far more and use "new" locations on
> > a
> > regular basis.
>
> > *Some* planned police enforcement is publicized in the local papers but
> > that's far from all of it.
>
> > > so any driver who gets nabbed is an idiot as far as I am concerned.
>
> > For speeding or being caught?
> > --
> > Alex
>
> They both go hand in hand. If you don't speed you have no fear of being
> caught.
> A few months ago I was driving at 60mph and entered a village with a 30mph
> limit and so slowed down to 30mph on the button.
mandated restriction?
> My wife who was in need of a WC begged me to hurry up, but I refused and
> stuck to the limit.
> A few hundred yards down the road was a marked police speed camera van but
> as I was not speeding I had no fear of getting a fine.
>
> In the same way, I never cycle through red lights or ride on pavements so
> have no worries about getting fined there.
> The only law I knowingly break is that I have no pedal reflectors, but I
Good idea though. Just be sure there is no reason for being stopped.
Buzzing past traffic in fancy-dress and flashing lights might upset a
few people and you may be suspected as acting unlawfully in some
sense. Before answering, make sure that the ociffer in question has
his story straight, then when he asks for you to speak tell him
directly he is mistaken. You don't need to or should say anything
else. For gawdsake don't volunteer your given name as was registered
at your birth as this and "understanding" means you accept the
charge.
Practice it. Get someone to say to you "do you understand " during
conversation and if you don't immediately answer "No" you forfeit a
pint.
> I have never heard of anyone being done for riding without them, in any case,
> my lights are very bright and I have nine of them all told.
engagement with ossifiers.
Mark
Oct 8, 2012, 8:00:39 AM10/8/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:49:17 +0100, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>not warn them?
If I saw the Police out enforcing any kind of traffic laws here I'd
have to have a long sit down and a stiff drink to cope with the
surprise.
I'd guess it's about 15 years since I've seen anything like that[1].
[1] I occasionally see a Policeman controlling the traffic lights but
they are ignoring all the offenses going on around them.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
wrote:
>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>not warn them?
have to have a long sit down and a stiff drink to cope with the
surprise.
I'd guess it's about 15 years since I've seen anything like that[1].
[1] I occasionally see a Policeman controlling the traffic lights but
they are ignoring all the offenses going on around them.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
Simon Mason
Oct 8, 2012, 8:00:39 AM10/8/12
to
On 7 Oct, 23:21, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Do you typically tear-arse through a village if there is no such
> mandated restriction?
Not at all - most villages have 30mph limits and I stick to them.
>
> Do you typically tear-arse through a village if there is no such
> mandated restriction?
One even has a 20 and I stick to that as well despite cars driving up
my backside when I do.
On the rare ones where it is 60mph I will probably do 40, or less if
there are people around.
> > My wife who was in need of a WC begged me to hurry up, but I refused and
> > stuck to the limit.
>
> Should have stopped and opened the door for her.
reduced.
> > The only law I knowingly break is that I have no pedal reflectors, but I
>
> It doesn't have the consensus of the majority, it wont be enforced.
> Good idea though. �Just be sure there is no reason for being stopped.
> Buzzing past traffic in fancy-dress and flashing lights might upset a
> few people and you may be suspected as acting unlawfully in some
> sense. �Before answering, make sure that the ociffer in question has
> his story straight, then when he asks for you to speak tell him
> directly he is mistaken. �You don't need to or should say anything
> else. �For gawdsake don't volunteer your given name as was registered
> at your birth as this and "understanding" means you accept the
> charge.
they found me cycling around in June at 0400h and wondered what I was
up to.
They bought my story about it being the best part of the day as it was
light and warm and there was nobody around and I liked to enjoy it.
--
Simon Mason
Bertie Wooster
Oct 8, 2012, 11:27:56 AM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:00:39 +0100, Mark
<i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:49:17 +0100, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>>not warn them?
>
>If I saw the Police out enforcing any kind of traffic laws here I'd
>have to have a long sit down and a stiff drink to cope with the
>surprise.
>
>I'd guess it's about 15 years since I've seen anything like that[1].
>
>[1] I occasionally see a Policeman controlling the traffic lights but
>they are ignoring all the offenses going on around them.
Around here I see the police regularly and very effectively targeting
<i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:49:17 +0100, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>>not warn them?
>
>If I saw the Police out enforcing any kind of traffic laws here I'd
>have to have a long sit down and a stiff drink to cope with the
>surprise.
>
>I'd guess it's about 15 years since I've seen anything like that[1].
>
>[1] I occasionally see a Policeman controlling the traffic lights but
>they are ignoring all the offenses going on around them.
unlicensed drivers. They do this with automatic number plate
recognition, with one vehicle doing the capture and recognition, and a
couple of other officers shooing unregistered vehicle drivers into a
large car park for manual processing by a number of officers.
It must be a highly effective system, and I hope they crush the
vehicles where the driver has been uninsured and untaxed for more than
a couple of weeks. (Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
forgetting to tax or insure for a few days).
More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
Adam Funk
Oct 8, 2012, 11:28:06 AM10/8/12
to
On 2012-10-08, Simon Mason wrote:
> The last time I was stopped by the cops on a bike was in 1973 when
> they found me cycling around in June at 0400h and wondered what I was
> up to.
> They bought my story about it being the best part of the day as it was
> light and warm and there was nobody around and I liked to enjoy it.
The way you phrase that ("bought my story") makes it sound like you
> The last time I was stopped by the cops on a bike was in 1973 when
> they found me cycling around in June at 0400h and wondered what I was
> up to.
> They bought my story about it being the best part of the day as it was
> light and warm and there was nobody around and I liked to enjoy it.
were up to something dodgy! ;-)
Mike Bristow
Oct 8, 2012, 11:28:52 AM10/8/12
to
In article <t8e57856oj4btdn1d...@4ax.com>,
the road this morning. It's not an unusual occurance - I'd say that
I see the police having words with a motorist every week or two.
This is in London, and your milage will vary depending on the force
in your area - and probably within a force's area, too.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> If I saw the Police out enforcing any kind of traffic laws here I'd
> have to have a long sit down and a stiff drink to cope with the
> surprise.
I saw a police motorcycle having a chat with someone at the side of
> If I saw the Police out enforcing any kind of traffic laws here I'd
> have to have a long sit down and a stiff drink to cope with the
> surprise.
the road this morning. It's not an unusual occurance - I'd say that
I see the police having words with a motorist every week or two.
This is in London, and your milage will vary depending on the force
in your area - and probably within a force's area, too.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Ian Jackson
Oct 8, 2012, 11:29:44 AM10/8/12
to
In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
know who to warn?
>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
law is a waste of police time.
More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
injury.
By warning others I not only save them the hassle, I also reduce the
figures which are used by the police, councillors, etc., to justify
repeating the exercise.
>Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
>each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
As others have pointed out, this is false equivalance between egg
whisks and mobile death greenhouses.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>not warn them?
No, I wouldn't warn anyone because it would be pointless. How would I
>If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
>at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
>who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
>cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
>not warn them?
know who to warn?
>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
law is a waste of police time.
More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
injury.
By warning others I not only save them the hassle, I also reduce the
figures which are used by the police, councillors, etc., to justify
repeating the exercise.
>Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
>each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
whisks and mobile death greenhouses.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk
Oct 8, 2012, 12:11:01 PM10/8/12
to
In message <l2j578pk7e89gvedm...@4ax.com>
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
[snip]
Cycling Networks with major sections of the routes that you can't use on
a bicycle! It's like constructing trunk roads and then asking motorists
to get out and push every few miles!
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
[snip]
> More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
Yes it's a very British type of solution isn't it. Create National
> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
Cycling Networks with major sections of the routes that you can't use on
a bicycle! It's like constructing trunk roads and then asking motorists
to get out and push every few miles!
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
Owen Dunn
Oct 8, 2012, 12:11:01 PM10/8/12
to
Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> writes:
> More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
What is the point of having a bit of the National Cycling Network on
> More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
which you're not allowed to cycle? Did Sustrans just draw lines on
the map without bothering to arrange that they should be cycleable on?
(S)
Bertie Wooster
Oct 8, 2012, 3:40:57 PM10/8/12
to
NCR21 and NCR4 end (or start) at CSG. NCR1 goes through the foot
tunnel. The problem is with the Thames Cycle Route which uses NCR4
upstream of CSG, then NCR1 downstream.
TfL recently gave Greenwich Council cash to do up Cutty Sark Gardens
on the specific understanding that the anti cycling by-law would be
repealed. Greenwich Council have chosen to renege on that
understanding, and Boris Johnson has instructed them to reconsider.
Alan Braggins
Oct 8, 2012, 3:41:13 PM10/8/12
to
permission to cycling on, and want people to see how they will join up
if it works out". Which isn't necessarily totally useless, so long as
they make clear which lines are which....
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Oct 8, 2012, 3:41:32 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
<be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>(Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days)
Given that reminders for tax and insurance both come out to you in the
<be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>(Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days)
post a couple of weeks before due (and usually several other insurers
in the post and email too), I don't think it's often an innocent
mistake. Incompetence, perhaps.
What is easy is missing your MOT. Not that I've ever done that, of
course.
How nice that bicycles attract none of those things. Although I'd
rather welcome an MOT for them, given the state some people let theirs
get into...
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by infinity is
to contemplate the extent of human stupidity." -- Voltaire
Adam Funk
Oct 8, 2012, 6:35:02 PM10/8/12
to
On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
> law is a waste of police time.
I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
> law is a waste of police time.
cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
> More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
> injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
> with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
> injury.
thirty-six
Oct 9, 2012, 5:06:54 AM10/9/12
to
On 8 Oct, 16:29, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8-955e-f120a135c...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Stop being a clever dick and stay an ignoramus on points of
legislation. Do not consent to giving name as no crime has been
commited and an arrest by an officer may be legal under parliament
(for failing to provide one's birth name),but it is unlawful if there
is no reason to believe that an unlawful act has been committed as
opposed to a criminal-offence. A criminal-offence has been committed
if you have formed an agreement to abide by the legislation. As no
monies are involved in cycling without lights then no offence has been
committed, unless you consent to it. If you are carrying goods for
another, be very careful as what you say as this could be used to form
a lawful arrest because it is assumed that you are doing it for
money. A courier should abide by legislation because he is usually
paid in the coin of the realm and a prosecution can stick..
> and I think that the enforcement of this
> law is a waste of police time.
It's control. Why do you think they don't give a toss whether your
lights actually conform to standards? When they want to use it to
oppress or tax they can, because it's in the legislation and they know
that the majority are all hypnotised with the aid of regular teeth
cleaning.
> More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
> injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
> with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
> injury.
Especially as most motorists are easier targets, what with vehicle
registration and driver licensing. Both show an agreement to contract
under admiralty law.
> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8-955e-f120a135c...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> M Wicks �<mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
> >at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
> >who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
> >cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
> >not warn them?
>
> No, I wouldn't warn anyone because it would be pointless. �How would I
> know who to warn?
>
> >If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> >well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
> past. �I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
> area should not be criminal
It's an offence to those who UNDERSTAND parliament's legislation.
>
> >If you saw that the police were having a 'blitz' on red light jumping
> >at a particular junction, staying out of sight and then nabbing those
> >who contravened the signals, then would you subsequently warn other
> >cyclists going past you towards the junction? And why would you warn/
> >not warn them?
>
> No, I wouldn't warn anyone because it would be pointless. �How would I
> know who to warn?
>
> >If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
> >well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>
> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
> past. �I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
> area should not be criminal
Stop being a clever dick and stay an ignoramus on points of
legislation. Do not consent to giving name as no crime has been
commited and an arrest by an officer may be legal under parliament
(for failing to provide one's birth name),but it is unlawful if there
is no reason to believe that an unlawful act has been committed as
opposed to a criminal-offence. A criminal-offence has been committed
if you have formed an agreement to abide by the legislation. As no
monies are involved in cycling without lights then no offence has been
committed, unless you consent to it. If you are carrying goods for
another, be very careful as what you say as this could be used to form
a lawful arrest because it is assumed that you are doing it for
money. A courier should abide by legislation because he is usually
paid in the coin of the realm and a prosecution can stick..
> and I think that the enforcement of this
> law is a waste of police time.
lights actually conform to standards? When they want to use it to
oppress or tax they can, because it's in the legislation and they know
that the majority are all hypnotised with the aid of regular teeth
cleaning.
> More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
> injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
> with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
> injury.
registration and driver licensing. Both show an agreement to contract
under admiralty law.
>
> By warning others I not only save them the hassle, I also reduce the
> figures which are used by the police, councillors, etc., to justify
> repeating the exercise.
>
> >Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> >each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
>
> As others have pointed out, this is false equivalance between egg
> whisks and mobile death greenhouses.
>
> --
> Ian Jackson � � � � � � � � �personal email: <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> By warning others I not only save them the hassle, I also reduce the
> figures which are used by the police, councillors, etc., to justify
> repeating the exercise.
>
> >Is warning other cyclists of such things as bad as drivers warning
> >each other of speed traps, which I would guess most here would condemn?
>
> As others have pointed out, this is false equivalance between egg
> whisks and mobile death greenhouses.
>
> --
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 9, 2012, 5:07:38 AM10/9/12
to
Quoting Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>:
>More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
Hm. I've ridden the Sightseer a good eight times, and I've never yet been
>More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
clear on that one. (I believe you; but the signage is not, shall we say,
ideal).
I think more alarming is the privatisation of public space outside City
Hall.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Potmos, October.
Owen Dunn
Oct 9, 2012, 5:08:17 AM10/9/12
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>>>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>>
>> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
>> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
>> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
>> law is a waste of police time.
>
> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
> cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
> On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>>>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>>
>> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
>> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
>> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
>> law is a waste of police time.
>
> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
> cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
(S)
Mark
Oct 9, 2012, 5:44:07 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:28:52 +0100, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com>
wrote:
I don't live in a big city, although I do cycle along busy roads where
plenty of offenses are being committed. The Police wouldn't get bored
booking them ;-)
wrote:
plenty of offenses are being committed. The Police wouldn't get bored
booking them ;-)
Mark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:31:29 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:35:02 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>>>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>>
>> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
>> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
>> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
>> law is a waste of police time.
>
>I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
Agreed. We have many streetlights here that wouldn't be out of place
in a "film-noir". i.e. they only light a small cone under the lamp
itself. I'll leave it for an excercice for the reader to add the
detective, wearing a raincoat, leaning against the pillar, smoking a
cigar ;-)
And they're planning to switch off half the streetlights soon to save
money :-(
>> More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
>> injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
>> with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
>> injury.
>
>I agree with that bit, though.
+1
wrote:
>On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In article <dc32ba61-0e4d-44f8...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>If the police were nabbing cyclists without lights instead (or as
>>>well), would you warn cyclists going past you who didn't have lights?
>>
>> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
>> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
>> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
>> law is a waste of police time.
>
>I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
in a "film-noir". i.e. they only light a small cone under the lamp
itself. I'll leave it for an excercice for the reader to add the
detective, wearing a raincoat, leaning against the pillar, smoking a
cigar ;-)
And they're planning to switch off half the streetlights soon to save
money :-(
>> More, I think that these campaigns are a grossly disproportionate
>> injustice, given how little attention is paid to misdeeds committed
>> with motor vehicles, which actually pose a serious risk of death and
>> injury.
>
>I agree with that bit, though.
Mark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:32:37 AM10/9/12
to
start, if a mistake has been made, the vehicle cannot be uncrushed
(and this has happened when insurers have forgotten to update the
database).
I think the vehicle should be confisticated and sold as a form of
fine.
Owen Dunn
Oct 9, 2012, 6:32:37 AM10/9/12
to
thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk> writes:
> It's an offence to those who UNDERSTAND parliament's legislation.
> Stop being a clever dick and stay an ignoramus on points of
> legislation. Do not consent to giving name as no crime has been
> commited and an arrest by an officer may be legal under parliament
> (for failing to provide one's birth name),but it is unlawful if there
> is no reason to believe that an unlawful act has been committed as
> opposed to a criminal-offence. A criminal-offence has been committed
> if you have formed an agreement to abide by the legislation.
I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
> It's an offence to those who UNDERSTAND parliament's legislation.
> Stop being a clever dick and stay an ignoramus on points of
> legislation. Do not consent to giving name as no crime has been
> commited and an arrest by an officer may be legal under parliament
> (for failing to provide one's birth name),but it is unlawful if there
> is no reason to believe that an unlawful act has been committed as
> opposed to a criminal-offence. A criminal-offence has been committed
> if you have formed an agreement to abide by the legislation.
of court.
(S)
Alan Braggins
Oct 9, 2012, 6:33:04 AM10/9/12
to
In article <83y5jga...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Owen Dunn wrote:
However, as you say, it depends on circumstances. Specifically, if you
are giving way at a T-junction looking to see if there is traffic coming
along the road you are about to join, your own lights are pointing across
the road.
>Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>
>> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>> cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
>
>Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
>best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
(Or not out-driving them if the near misses were when driving.)
>>
>> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>> cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
>
>Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
>best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
However, as you say, it depends on circumstances. Specifically, if you
are giving way at a T-junction looking to see if there is traffic coming
along the road you are about to join, your own lights are pointing across
the road.
Mark
Oct 9, 2012, 6:36:01 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:41:32 +0100, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>(Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days)
>
>Given that reminders for tax and insurance both come out to you in the
>post a couple of weeks before due (and usually several other insurers
>in the post and email too), I don't think it's often an innocent
>mistake. Incompetence, perhaps.
>
>What is easy is missing your MOT. Not that I've ever done that, of
>course.
I have.
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>(Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days)
>
>Given that reminders for tax and insurance both come out to you in the
>post a couple of weeks before due (and usually several other insurers
>in the post and email too), I don't think it's often an innocent
>mistake. Incompetence, perhaps.
>
>What is easy is missing your MOT. Not that I've ever done that, of
>course.
>How nice that bicycles attract none of those things. Although I'd
>rather welcome an MOT for them, given the state some people let theirs
>get into...
good condition and would not want the hassle and cost of having
someone else check it over. They'd probably bugger up the gear
adjustments too.
Adam Funk
Oct 9, 2012, 8:11:04 AM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <83y5jga...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Owen Dunn wrote:
>>Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>>> cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
>>
>>Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
>>best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
Sure, if the ninja is right in front. Real ninjas don't have any
> In article <83y5jga...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Owen Dunn wrote:
>>Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>>> cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
>>
>>Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
>>best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
reflectors either, though.
> (Or not out-driving them if the near misses were when driving.)
>
> However, as you say, it depends on circumstances. Specifically, if you
> are giving way at a T-junction looking to see if there is traffic coming
> along the road you are about to join, your own lights are pointing across
> the road.
corner on the pavement and bounding onto the road lane in the wrong
direction.
Adam Funk
Oct 9, 2012, 9:23:23 AM10/9/12
to
On 2012-10-09, Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:35:02 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
>>> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
>>> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
>>> law is a waste of police time.
>>
>>I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>>cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
>
> Agreed. We have many streetlights here that wouldn't be out of place
> in a "film-noir". i.e. they only light a small cone under the lamp
> itself. I'll leave it for an excercice for the reader to add the
> detective, wearing a raincoat, leaning against the pillar, smoking a
> cigar ;-)
I like Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) as Tracer Bullet.
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:35:02 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-10-08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Yes, I definitely would warn such cyclists and have done so in the
>>> past. I think that riding at modest speed without lights in an urban
>>> area should not be criminal and I think that the enforcement of this
>>> law is a waste of police time.
>>
>>I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
>>cyclists". Urban areas are not all well lit.
>
> Agreed. We have many streetlights here that wouldn't be out of place
> in a "film-noir". i.e. they only light a small cone under the lamp
> itself. I'll leave it for an excercice for the reader to add the
> detective, wearing a raincoat, leaning against the pillar, smoking a
> cigar ;-)
Message has been deleted
Ian Jackson
Oct 9, 2012, 9:44:22 AM10/9/12
to
In article <gqfdk9x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Obviously there are stupid things that
are exarcerbated by lack of lights. But most of the people who would
be caught by a crackdown on unlit cyclists aren't behaving that way -
around here, at least.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
are exarcerbated by lack of lights. But most of the people who would
be caught by a crackdown on unlit cyclists aren't behaving that way -
around here, at least.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Alan Braggins
Oct 9, 2012, 1:53:15 PM10/9/12
to
cost of ensuring they are in a safe state to be sold might cost the
police (and hence taxpayers) more than the sale recovers.
And in the event of a (hopefully rare) mistake, it's still going to cost
time and money to get the car back from its new owner and compensate those
involved. (If you let the new owner keep it and just compensate the original
owner, it might as well have been scrapped.)
Simon Mason
Oct 9, 2012, 1:53:59 PM10/9/12
to
> > In article <83y5jgawsx....@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Owen Dunn wrote:
dazzles oncoming drivers even though it is pointing at the road. I
always wave back cheerily when I get flashed as though I know the
driver and assume he is greeting me :-) At least it shows that I am
super visible.
--
Simon Mason
> >>Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>
> >>> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
> >>> cyclists". �Urban areas are not all well lit.
>
> >>Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
> >>best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
>
> Sure, if the ninja is right in front. �Real ninjas don't have any
> reflectors either, though.
>
I have the opposite problem - my front light is so bright that it
>
> >>> I disagree, as someone who has had a couple of near misses with "ninja
> >>> cyclists". �Urban areas are not all well lit.
>
> >>Obviously it'll depend on the circumstances, but isn't that usually
> >>best remedied by you not out-cycling your own lights?
>
> Sure, if the ninja is right in front. �Real ninjas don't have any
> reflectors either, though.
>
dazzles oncoming drivers even though it is pointing at the road. I
always wave back cheerily when I get flashed as though I know the
driver and assume he is greeting me :-) At least it shows that I am
super visible.
--
Simon Mason
Bertie Wooster
Oct 9, 2012, 1:54:28 PM10/9/12
to
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>(Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days)
>
>Given that reminders for tax and insurance both come out to you in the
>post a couple of weeks before due (and usually several other insurers
>in the post and email too), I don't think it's often an innocent
>mistake. Incompetence, perhaps.
>
>What is easy is missing your MOT. Not that I've ever done that, of
>course.
My tax is due on 1 January each year. I am often away over Christmas.
><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>(Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days)
>
>Given that reminders for tax and insurance both come out to you in the
>post a couple of weeks before due (and usually several other insurers
>in the post and email too), I don't think it's often an innocent
>mistake. Incompetence, perhaps.
>
>What is easy is missing your MOT. Not that I've ever done that, of
>course.
I have applied for a new disc on or about 20 December, gone away the
following day and returned on 6 January, or thereabouts, with my car
on a private road but with no tax disc on display.
I would hope that my car would not be crushed in that circumstance.
Bertie Wooster
Oct 9, 2012, 1:55:20 PM10/9/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:07:38 +0100, David Damerell
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>:
>>More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>>NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>>cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
>
>Hm. I've ridden the Sightseer a good eight times, and I've never yet been
>clear on that one. (I believe you; but the signage is not, shall we say,
>ideal).
>
>I think more alarming is the privatisation of public space outside City
>Hall.
Yes, that is very worrying. The land belongs to More London and they
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>:
>>More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>>NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>>cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
>
>Hm. I've ridden the Sightseer a good eight times, and I've never yet been
>clear on that one. (I believe you; but the signage is not, shall we say,
>ideal).
>
>I think more alarming is the privatisation of public space outside City
>Hall.
are certainly a very bike unfriendly landowner. The disputes between
More London and Southwark Cyclists have been rumbling on for years.
thirty-six
Oct 10, 2012, 6:25:53 AM10/10/12
to
On Oct 9, 2:23�pm, Roger Burton West <roger
+urcm201...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
> its complete invalidity appears not to convince him/her.
One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta. It's parliament
which is invalid.
They daren't challenge a free man, someone who is a true Englishman
with traceable linage to that time.
Fee fye foh fum, an Englisman ere will shew em is bum.
That's what you do when they ask you towards the bar in order to
demonstrate without doubt that you do not give any recognition to a
court set up to tax the common man and steal his wealth. Shit on the
portside. Parliament and the courts collude to defraud the common
man. It is unlawful and 1000 years ago these bastards would hang for
protecting each other at the expense of the common man.
+urcm201...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
> On 2012-10-09, Owen Dunn wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
> >of court.
>
> Thirty-six has form for "Freemen on the Land" legal woo. Evidence of
>
> >I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
> >of court.
>
> its complete invalidity appears not to convince him/her.
One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta. It's parliament
which is invalid.
They daren't challenge a free man, someone who is a true Englishman
with traceable linage to that time.
Fee fye foh fum, an Englisman ere will shew em is bum.
That's what you do when they ask you towards the bar in order to
demonstrate without doubt that you do not give any recognition to a
court set up to tax the common man and steal his wealth. Shit on the
portside. Parliament and the courts collude to defraud the common
man. It is unlawful and 1000 years ago these bastards would hang for
protecting each other at the expense of the common man.
thirty-six
Oct 10, 2012, 6:26:37 AM10/10/12
to
On Oct 9, 11:32�am, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
who's court, probably not one that I recognise?
Mark
Oct 10, 2012, 6:26:37 AM10/10/12
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:53:15 +0100, ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <8mq77858lq05999bd...@4ax.com>, Mark wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It must be a highly effective system, and I hope they crush the
>>>vehicles where the driver has been uninsured and untaxed for more than
>>>a couple of weeks. (Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days).
>>
>>Actually I think crushing the vehicles is a very silly idea. For a
>>start, if a mistake has been made, the vehicle cannot be uncrushed
>>(and this has happened when insurers have forgotten to update the
>>database).
>>
>>I think the vehicle should be confisticated and sold as a form of
>>fine.
>
>If uninsured and untaxed cars are likely to be poorly maintained, the
>cost of ensuring they are in a safe state to be sold might cost the
>police (and hence taxpayers) more than the sale recovers.
Sell the poor ones "as seen" at an auction then. The better ones can
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <8mq77858lq05999bd...@4ax.com>, Mark wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It must be a highly effective system, and I hope they crush the
>>>vehicles where the driver has been uninsured and untaxed for more than
>>>a couple of weeks. (Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days).
>>
>>Actually I think crushing the vehicles is a very silly idea. For a
>>start, if a mistake has been made, the vehicle cannot be uncrushed
>>(and this has happened when insurers have forgotten to update the
>>database).
>>
>>I think the vehicle should be confisticated and sold as a form of
>>fine.
>
>If uninsured and untaxed cars are likely to be poorly maintained, the
>cost of ensuring they are in a safe state to be sold might cost the
>police (and hence taxpayers) more than the sale recovers.
be checked out and sold with some kind of warrantee.
>And in the event of a (hopefully rare) mistake, it's still going to cost
>time and money to get the car back from its new owner and compensate those
>involved. (If you let the new owner keep it and just compensate the original
>owner, it might as well have been scrapped.)
would be more likely to be recoverable if a mistake is discovered
quickly.
The problem with compensation is that it is unlikely to allow the
victim to purchase a similar car, especially if the car is old but in
good condition.
Harry Stottle
Oct 10, 2012, 6:30:34 AM10/10/12
to
On 09/10/12 18:53, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> I have the opposite problem - my front light is so bright that it
> dazzles oncoming drivers even though it is pointing at the road. I
> always wave back cheerily when I get flashed as though I know the
> driver and assume he is greeting me :-) At least it shows that I am
> super visible.
>
>
I hope I am never riding in front of one of your dazzled drivers, and
>
> I have the opposite problem - my front light is so bright that it
> dazzles oncoming drivers even though it is pointing at the road. I
> always wave back cheerily when I get flashed as though I know the
> driver and assume he is greeting me :-) At least it shows that I am
> super visible.
>
>
get knocked off because of your inconsideration for other road users.
Rob Morley
Oct 10, 2012, 7:27:29 AM10/10/12
to
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 8:03:52 AM10/10/12
to
In article <b3ec94ea-079f-46c5...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
...
recognised by the policemen who come to arrest you, the judges who
might overrule them, and the society at large in which those people
are embedded.
You may protest that the court lacks authority but they will throw you
in jail all the same.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>who's court, probably not one that I recognise?
What matters is not whether you recognise the court, but whether it is
recognised by the policemen who come to arrest you, the judges who
might overrule them, and the society at large in which those people
are embedded.
You may protest that the court lacks authority but they will throw you
in jail all the same.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
M Wicks
Oct 10, 2012, 8:54:12 AM10/10/12
to
the roads safer.
Tom Gardner
Oct 10, 2012, 10:30:13 AM10/10/12
to
thirty-six wrote:
> One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta. It's parliament
> which is invalid.
> They daren't challenge a free man, someone who is a true Englishman
> with traceable linage to that time.
And can you trace your lineage to that of a freeman?
> One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta. It's parliament
> which is invalid.
> They daren't challenge a free man, someone who is a true Englishman
> with traceable linage to that time.
Certainly I'm not a freeman, I'm a subject, not a citizen.
In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta
don't know much about the subject. I'm no expert either, but
at least I know that even at the time Magna Carta was
irrelevant *by design* to *most* of the population!
"While today the term “free men” would be considered to
refer to most of the men (and women) of the land, in
1215 the term referred to only one-quarter of the
population."
from http://www.enotes.com/topics/magna-carta
> Fee fye foh fum, an Englisman ere will shew em is bum.
> That's what you do when they ask you towards the bar in order to
> demonstrate without doubt that you do not give any recognition to a
> court set up to tax the common man and steal his wealth. Shit on the
> portside. Parliament and the courts collude to defraud the common
> man. It is unlawful and 1000 years ago these bastards would hang for
> protecting each other at the expense of the common man.
Tom Gardner
Oct 10, 2012, 10:30:21 AM10/10/12
to
If you try that "defence" (and I use the term loosely), could
you give me warning of your court appearance so that I can
come and have a giggle from the public gallery?
Ian Jackson
Oct 10, 2012, 10:40:15 AM10/10/12
to
In article <8b8de33b-01bf-41eb...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I think that's enough of a dogpile here. Please refrain from
following up just to agree with the criticism of Simon, unless
you actually have something novel and interesting to say.
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I agree. Simon, please stop doing this, if you truly care about making
>the roads safer.
(moderator's note:)
>I agree. Simon, please stop doing this, if you truly care about making
>the roads safer.
I think that's enough of a dogpile here. Please refrain from
following up just to agree with the criticism of Simon, unless
you actually have something novel and interesting to say.
thirty-six
Oct 10, 2012, 11:06:27 AM10/10/12
to
On 10 Oct, 15:30, Tom Gardner <spamj...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> thirty-six wrote:
> > One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta. � It's parliament
> > which is invalid.
> > They daren't challenge a free man, someone who is a true Englishman
> > with traceable linage to that time.
>
> And can you trace your lineage to that of a freeman?
> Certainly I'm not a freeman, I'm a subject, not a citizen.
>
> In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta
> don't know much about the subject. I'm no expert either, but
> at least I know that even at the time Magna Carta was
> irrelevant *by design* to *most* of the population!
>
> � �"While today the term free men would be considered to
> � � refer to most of the men (and women) of the land, in
> � � 1215 the term referred to only one-quarter of the
> � � population."
>
> fromhttp://www.enotes.com/topics/magna-carta
> thirty-six wrote:
> > One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta. � It's parliament
> > which is invalid.
> > They daren't challenge a free man, someone who is a true Englishman
> > with traceable linage to that time.
>
> And can you trace your lineage to that of a freeman?
> Certainly I'm not a freeman, I'm a subject, not a citizen.
>
> In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta
> don't know much about the subject. I'm no expert either, but
> at least I know that even at the time Magna Carta was
> irrelevant *by design* to *most* of the population!
>
> � �"While today the term free men would be considered to
> � � refer to most of the men (and women) of the land, in
> � � 1215 the term referred to only one-quarter of the
> � � population."
>
>
> > Fee fye foh fum, an Englisman ere will shew em is bum.
> > That's what you do when they ask you towards the bar in order to
> > demonstrate without doubt that you do not give any recognition to a
> > court set up to tax the common man and steal his wealth. Shit on the
> > portside. � Parliament and the courts collude to defraud the common
> > man. �It is unlawful and 1000 years ago these bastards would hang for
> > protecting each other at the expense of the common man.
>
> Can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking? :)
Seeing it as it is.
> > Fee fye foh fum, an Englisman ere will shew em is bum.
> > That's what you do when they ask you towards the bar in order to
> > demonstrate without doubt that you do not give any recognition to a
> > court set up to tax the common man and steal his wealth. Shit on the
> > portside. � Parliament and the courts collude to defraud the common
> > man. �It is unlawful and 1000 years ago these bastards would hang for
> > protecting each other at the expense of the common man.
>
> Can I have some of whatever it is you're smoking? :)
There is strong probability that I'm a decedent of cartographers and
engineers of 18th century (loss of records in church fire means there
in no absolute paper evidence). It is thought that these a can be
directly traced (I've not spent time checking documents, but certainly
possible) to a knight of the round table. In my heart I know I was
born not to be a slave and I might seem a little overenthusiastic but
there is 40 years of indoctrination to cast off and my exuberance
comes from realising I don't have to follow officialdom, I am not a
slave (or a number ; ) ) I am a free man and do not desire the
bounds laid by office.
thirty-six
Oct 10, 2012, 12:26:24 PM10/10/12
to
On 10 Oct, 13:03, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <b3ec94ea-079f-46c5-bcb5-9bc9affd4...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
for the artificial-values of civilisation.
"I'm a simple man, sees? I goes about me's own thing and bothers no-
one but meself." If I should fall foul of commercial law it would
be unintentional and excusable. My wish is not to engage commerce
but I am in the midst of it and it is a difficult state to rectify.
>
> In article <b3ec94ea-079f-46c5-bcb5-9bc9affd4...@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>
> thirty-six �<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Oct 9, 11:32�am, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
> >>of court.
> ...
> >who's court, probably not one that I recognise?
>
> What matters is not whether you recognise the court, but whether it is
> recognised by the policemen who come to arrest you, the judges who
> might overrule them, and the society at large in which those people
> are embedded.
I am a lawful man that minimises commercial activity, I have no need
> thirty-six �<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Oct 9, 11:32�am, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
> >>of court.
> ...
> >who's court, probably not one that I recognise?
>
> What matters is not whether you recognise the court, but whether it is
> recognised by the policemen who come to arrest you, the judges who
> might overrule them, and the society at large in which those people
> are embedded.
for the artificial-values of civilisation.
>
> You may protest that the court lacks authority but they will throw you
> in jail all the same.
I am a lawful man that does not understand commercial legislation.
> You may protest that the court lacks authority but they will throw you
> in jail all the same.
"I'm a simple man, sees? I goes about me's own thing and bothers no-
one but meself." If I should fall foul of commercial law it would
be unintentional and excusable. My wish is not to engage commerce
but I am in the midst of it and it is a difficult state to rectify.
>
davethedave
Oct 10, 2012, 12:26:55 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:30:13 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
> In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta don't
> know much about the subject.
Well...
> In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta don't
> know much about the subject.
The subject is the bit at the beginning of the sentence followed by a
verb and occasionally an object. Unless you are Yoda of course, who was
much more of a subject / object / verb kind of Jedi.
Magna Carta that's some kind of downhill bike, right?
--
davethedave
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 1:32:43 PM10/10/12
to
at least in the short term, they impound them until the owner turns
up with proof of insurance and tax and a recovery fee, then let the
owner have them back. http://www.met.police.uk/vehicle_recovery/index.htm
The owner who collects it might not necessarily be the owner at the
time of seisure: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q362.htm
Presumably there's some sort of time limit, but this is off-topic.
The police also have the power to seize a car "if it's being used in an
antisocial manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress)."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/road-traffic/
I've never heard of that power being used when someone has threatened
or endangered a cyclist, but perhaps it could have a deterrent effect if
it was....
Alan Braggins
Oct 10, 2012, 1:32:51 PM10/10/12
to
In article <627f2bdf-e8a1-4128...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, thirty-six wrote:
>On Oct 9, 2:23�pm, Roger Burton West <roger
>+urcm201...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-09, Owen Dunn wrote:
>>
>> >I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
>> >of court.
>>
>> Thirty-six has form for "Freemen on the Land" legal woo. Evidence of
>> its complete invalidity appears not to convince him/her.
>
>One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta.
"Are you sure sir? 'No member of the Corps should ever report for
>On Oct 9, 2:23�pm, Roger Burton West <roger
>+urcm201...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-09, Owen Dunn wrote:
>>
>> >I'm afraid this is legal nonsense and likely to end you up in contempt
>> >of court.
>>
>> Thirty-six has form for "Freemen on the Land" legal woo. Evidence of
>> its complete invalidity appears not to convince him/her.
>
>One only has to enact article 61 of the Magna Carta.
active duty in a ginger toupee.'"
Tom Gardner
Oct 10, 2012, 1:33:15 PM10/10/12
to
davethedave wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:30:13 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta don't
>> know much about the subject.
>
> Well...
>
> The subject is the bit at the beginning of the sentence followed by a
> verb and occasionally an object. Unless you are Yoda of course, who was
> much more of a subject / object / verb kind of Jedi.
I always did like reverse polish notation for calculators.
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:30:13 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> In my experience most people that prattle on about Magna Carta don't
>> know much about the subject.
>
> Well...
>
> The subject is the bit at the beginning of the sentence followed by a
> verb and occasionally an object. Unless you are Yoda of course, who was
> much more of a subject / object / verb kind of Jedi.
German's a bit of an RPN language, and it is just fine so
long as the sentences aren't too long :)
> Magna Carta that's some kind of downhill bike, right?
I'd already decided to bite my tongue (fingers?) over 36's
"responses".
Danny Colyer
Oct 10, 2012, 1:48:12 PM10/10/12
to
On 10/10/2012 18:32, Alan Braggins wrote:
> The police also have the power to seize a car "if it's being used in an
> antisocial manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress)."
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/road-traffic/
>
> I've never heard of that power being used when someone has threatened
> or endangered a cyclist, but perhaps it could have a deterrent effect if
> it was....
The police told me that they would give a Section 59 (essentially a
> The police also have the power to seize a car "if it's being used in an
> antisocial manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress)."
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/road-traffic/
>
> I've never heard of that power being used when someone has threatened
> or endangered a cyclist, but perhaps it could have a deterrent effect if
> it was....
motoring ASBO) to this driver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jvImUH-ubw
I never got the promised letter confirming that they'd done so, though,
nor got round to chasing it up.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson
Mark
Oct 15, 2012, 4:57:17 AM10/15/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:32:43 +0100, ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <8mq77858lq05999bd...@4ax.com>, Mark wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It must be a highly effective system, and I hope they crush the
>>>vehicles where the driver has been uninsured and untaxed for more than
>>>a couple of weeks. (Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days).
>>
>>Actually I think crushing the vehicles is a very silly idea. For a
>>start, if a mistake has been made, the vehicle cannot be uncrushed
>>(and this has happened when insurers have forgotten to update the
>>database).
>>
>>I think the vehicle should be confisticated and sold as a form of
>>fine.
>
>Google suggests that in fact they neither crush them nor sell them,
>at least in the short term, they impound them until the owner turns
>up with proof of insurance and tax and a recovery fee, then let the
>owner have them back. http://www.met.police.uk/vehicle_recovery/index.htm
>The owner who collects it might not necessarily be the owner at the
>time of seisure: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q362.htm
>Presumably there's some sort of time limit, but this is off-topic.
Maybe the rules have changed but "Which?" magazine highlighted a case
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <8mq77858lq05999bd...@4ax.com>, Mark wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:27:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>><be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>It must be a highly effective system, and I hope they crush the
>>>vehicles where the driver has been uninsured and untaxed for more than
>>>a couple of weeks. (Everyone can make an innocent mistake of
>>>forgetting to tax or insure for a few days).
>>
>>Actually I think crushing the vehicles is a very silly idea. For a
>>start, if a mistake has been made, the vehicle cannot be uncrushed
>>(and this has happened when insurers have forgotten to update the
>>database).
>>
>>I think the vehicle should be confisticated and sold as a form of
>>fine.
>
>Google suggests that in fact they neither crush them nor sell them,
>at least in the short term, they impound them until the owner turns
>up with proof of insurance and tax and a recovery fee, then let the
>owner have them back. http://www.met.police.uk/vehicle_recovery/index.htm
>The owner who collects it might not necessarily be the owner at the
>time of seisure: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q362.htm
>Presumably there's some sort of time limit, but this is off-topic.
where a car was crushed when it was road legal. The insurer had
failed to update the database so the information given to the Police
was incorrect.
>The police also have the power to seize a car "if it's being used in an
>antisocial manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress)."
>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/road-traffic/
>
>I've never heard of that power being used when someone has threatened
>or endangered a cyclist, but perhaps it could have a deterrent effect if
>it was....
Policeman/women around to see it.
Paul Luton
Dec 7, 2012, 11:54:05 AM12/7/12
to
On 08/10/2012 17:11, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In message <l2j578pk7e89gvedm...@4ax.com>
> Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Cycling Networks with major sections of the routes that you can't use on
> a bicycle! It's like constructing trunk roads and then asking motorists
> to get out and push every few miles!
>
> Mike
>
The difference is that trunk roads are constructed by a Government
Agency. Sustrans is just a provincial charity. That tells you about the
status of cycling !
> In message <l2j578pk7e89gvedm...@4ax.com>
> Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
>
> Yes it's a very British type of solution isn't it. Create National
>> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
>
> Cycling Networks with major sections of the routes that you can't use on
> a bicycle! It's like constructing trunk roads and then asking motorists
> to get out and push every few miles!
>
> Mike
>
The difference is that trunk roads are constructed by a Government
Agency. Sustrans is just a provincial charity. That tells you about the
status of cycling !
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Dec 7, 2012, 5:47:29 PM12/7/12
to
In article <55-dnScxqpDDiF_N...@eclipse.net.uk>,
clue. We all know where roads paved with good intentions lead.
To a first approximation, Sustrans's and the NCN's main effects
have been to encourage the mindset that cycling should be restricted
to designated off-road paths and quiet roads only, and that it is
really only a recreational activity. Yes, I know that wasn't and
isn't their intent ....
I was a bit taken aback when riding on a very quiet road in north
Cornwall across an NCN to be told that I should be using the NCN.
It was a foreigner[*], of course, but I hadn't realised how far
that mindset had got.
[*] Someone from the other side of the Tamar, in this case probably
London or the Home Counties.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Paul Luton <pa...@pluton.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>On 08/10/2012 17:11, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>> In message <l2j578pk7e89gvedm...@4ax.com>
>> Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>>> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>>> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
>>
>> Yes it's a very British type of solution isn't it. Create National
>> Cycling Networks with major sections of the routes that you can't use on
>> a bicycle! It's like constructing trunk roads and then asking motorists
>> to get out and push every few miles!
>
>On 08/10/2012 17:11, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>> In message <l2j578pk7e89gvedm...@4ax.com>
>> Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> More frequently I see PCSO targeting cyclists on the NCR1, NCR4 and
>>> NCR21 in Cutty Sark Gardens. Despite assurances to the contrary,
>>> cycling is banned on those parts of the National Cycling Network.
>>
>> Yes it's a very British type of solution isn't it. Create National
>> Cycling Networks with major sections of the routes that you can't use on
>> a bicycle! It's like constructing trunk roads and then asking motorists
>> to get out and push every few miles!
>
>The difference is that trunk roads are constructed by a Government
>Agency. Sustrans is just a provincial charity. That tells you about the
>status of cycling !
And one with a lot of good intentions but no real evidence of much
>Agency. Sustrans is just a provincial charity. That tells you about the
>status of cycling !
clue. We all know where roads paved with good intentions lead.
To a first approximation, Sustrans's and the NCN's main effects
have been to encourage the mindset that cycling should be restricted
to designated off-road paths and quiet roads only, and that it is
really only a recreational activity. Yes, I know that wasn't and
isn't their intent ....
I was a bit taken aback when riding on a very quiet road in north
Cornwall across an NCN to be told that I should be using the NCN.
It was a foreigner[*], of course, but I hadn't realised how far
that mindset had got.
[*] Someone from the other side of the Tamar, in this case probably
London or the Home Counties.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alan Braggins
Dec 8, 2012, 6:50:48 AM12/8/12
to
In article <k9tbh7$a3d$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>And one with a lot of good intentions but no real evidence of much
>clue. We all know where roads paved with good intentions lead.
Rome, like all roads? :-)
>And one with a lot of good intentions but no real evidence of much
>clue. We all know where roads paved with good intentions lead.
(However, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" does not
in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
Alistair Gunn
Dec 8, 2012, 3:15:17 PM12/8/12
to
Alan Braggins twisted the electrons to say:
is paved with good intentions ...
[1] Aka "The Road to Hull".
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> (However, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" does not
> in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
Just don't get confused and start wondering if the Clive Sullivan Way[1]
> in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
is paved with good intentions ...
[1] Aka "The Road to Hull".
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Owen Dunn
Dec 8, 2012, 4:09:17 PM12/8/12
to
Alistair Gunn <palmer...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Alan Braggins twisted the electrons to say:
>> (However, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" does not
>> in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
>
> Just don't get confused and start wondering if the Clive Sullivan Way[1]
> is paved with good intentions ...
>
> [1] Aka "The Road to Hull".
My brother lives up there. It is almost time for my annual earworm.
> Alan Braggins twisted the electrons to say:
>> (However, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" does not
>> in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
>
> Just don't get confused and start wondering if the Clive Sullivan Way[1]
> is paved with good intentions ...
>
> [1] Aka "The Road to Hull".
Is it a coincidence that `Driving Home for Christmas' was released in
1988 and `The Road to Hell' the following year? I think we should be
told.
(S)
Simon Mason
Dec 9, 2012, 6:35:04 AM12/9/12
to
On 8 Dec, 21:09, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
That "Road to Hell" was in fact based on the M25's notorious
reputation, IIRC.
--
Simon Mason
reputation, IIRC.
--
Simon Mason
Simon Mason
Dec 9, 2012, 6:35:28 AM12/9/12
to
On 8 Dec, 20:15, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Alan Braggins twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > (However, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" does not
> > in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
>
> Just don't get confused and start wondering if the Clive Sullivan Way[1]
> is paved with good intentions ...
>
> [1] Aka "The Road to Hull".
> --
Yes, although nobody in their right mind would cycle down there,
> Alan Braggins twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > (However, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" does not
> > in fact imply that no roads paved with good intentions lead to not-Hell.)
>
> Just don't get confused and start wondering if the Clive Sullivan Way[1]
> is paved with good intentions ...
>
> [1] Aka "The Road to Hull".
> --
although around 7 miles west of the Clive Sullivan Way is one of the
fastest TT courses in the country.
Local wisdom has it that this is due to all of the lorries speeding
east to catch the ferries to the Continent and thus sucking you along
in their wake.
--
Simon Mason
0 new messages