Magistrate insanity

Tim wrote:
SteveH wrote:
doetnietcomputeren wrote:

Banning someone from driving for non-driving offences is madness. I
can't see any justification for it at all.

As others have pointed out, it's a great deal of inconvenience,
dealt to someone who was causing inconvenience to others, over a
long period of time.

I think it's a sound punishment.

I think we have to be careful, given the number of new offences
introduced in recent years.

Put some metal in your plastic recycling bin - that can end up being
dealt with through the courts - are we now in a position where you
could be banned from driving for doing it?

Quite. Whatever the man's crimes, I doubt very much whether this
sentence will survive an appeal (assuming a half competant lawyer). A
recent case of a cyclist who recieved points on his driving licence
for a cycling offence had the charges dropped on appeal.

A more appropriate sentence would have been re-homing for the dog
with a competant owner and a ban on future dog ownership.

It's not so much this single case, rather the precedent it now sets -
magistrates are quite often a bit loopy, so I wouldn't want to trust
them with this kind of power.

Why were they dropped?

Seems to me that every time a cyclist is seen riding through pedestrians on
the pavement, ignoring red lights, riding at night without lights etc they
should be hauled up and treated exactly as if they were using a
car/motorcycle at the time.

It may not be practical to introduce a driving licence for cyclists on the
road but they should have to wear a Tufty Club badge

--
Hog

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:16:27 -0000
"Hog" wrote:

It may not be practical to introduce a driving licence for cyclists
on the road but they should have to wear a Tufty Club badge

I lost mine. :-(

Rob Morley wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:16:27 -0000
"Hog" wrote:

It may not be practical to introduce a driving licence for cyclists
on the road but they should have to wear a Tufty Club badge

I lost mine. :-(

I still have mine proudly pinned to my very first leather bike jacket,
which I bought in 1979

--
Lozzo
Versys 650 Tourer, CBR600F-W racebike in the making, SR250 SpazzTrakka,
TS250C, RD400F (somewhere)
Garage clearout - Yamaha SpazzTrakka 250 for sale, email for details

Lozzo wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:16:27 -0000
"Hog" wrote:

It may not be practical to introduce a driving licence for cyclists
on the road but they should have to wear a Tufty Club badge

I lost mine. :-(

I still have mine proudly pinned to my very first leather bike jacket,
which I bought in 1979

If I had to bet on anyone else here having been in the TC and having the
badge it would, of course, have been you.

--
Hog

Hog wrote:
Tim wrote:
SteveH wrote:
doetnietcomputeren wrote:

Banning someone from driving for non-driving offences is madness. I
can't see any justification for it at all.
As others have pointed out, it's a great deal of inconvenience,
dealt to someone who was causing inconvenience to others, over a
long period of time.

I think it's a sound punishment.
I think we have to be careful, given the number of new offences
introduced in recent years.

Put some metal in your plastic recycling bin - that can end up being
dealt with through the courts - are we now in a position where you
could be banned from driving for doing it?
Quite. Whatever the man's crimes, I doubt very much whether this
sentence will survive an appeal (assuming a half competant lawyer). A
recent case of a cyclist who recieved points on his driving licence
for a cycling offence had the charges dropped on appeal.

A more appropriate sentence would have been re-homing for the dog
with a competant owner and a ban on future dog ownership.

It's not so much this single case, rather the precedent it now sets -
magistrates are quite often a bit loopy, so I wouldn't want to trust
them with this kind of power.

Why were they dropped?

Seems to me that every time a cyclist is seen riding through pedestrians on
the pavement, ignoring red lights, riding at night without lights etc they
should be hauled up and treated exactly as if they were using a
car/motorcycle at the time.

That's like comparing waving a loaded gun in public and waving an
ice-cream cone. Risible.

It may not be practical to introduce a driving licence for cyclists on the
road but they should have to wear a Tufty Club badge

I'll bet the driver which cut me up on a roundabout yesterday was
insured, his vehicle taxed and had a valid driving license. These
things don't magically turn people in to considerate road users.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

On 28 Jan, 00:16, "Hog" wrote:
Tim wrote:
SteveH wrote:
doetnietcomputeren wrote:

Banning someone from driving for non-driving offences is madness. I
can't see any justification for it at all.

As others have pointed out, it's a great deal of inconvenience,
dealt to someone who was causing inconvenience to others, over a
long period of time.

I think it's a sound punishment.

I think we have to be careful, given the number of new offences
introduced in recent years.

Put some metal in your plastic recycling bin - that can end up being
dealt with through the courts - are we now in a position where you
could be banned from driving for doing it?

Quite. *Whatever the man's crimes, I doubt very much whether this
sentence will survive an appeal (assuming a half competant lawyer). A
recent case of a cyclist who recieved points on his driving licence
for a cycling offence had the charges dropped on appeal.

A more appropriate sentence would have been re-homing for the dog
with a competant owner and a ban on future dog ownership.

It's not so much this single case, rather the precedent it now sets -
magistrates are quite often a bit loopy, so I wouldn't want to trust
them with this kind of power.

Why were they dropped?

Seems to me that every time a cyclist is seen riding through pedestrians on
the pavement, ignoring red lights, riding at night without lights etc they
should be hauled up and treated exactly as if they were using a
car/motorcycle at the time.

When many more motorists do exactly the same they are not always
hauled up. They have to be observed and caught first. My guess is the
magistrate is aware that cyclists are vulnerable road users who do
those things to avoid being killed by drivers. Also, they pose much
less of a lethal threat to other road users than do motorists. It
makes a pleasant change for a cyclist not to be subject to the same
laws as killer drivers.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

Hog wrote:
Tim wrote:
Quite. Whatever the man's crimes, I doubt very much whether this
sentence will survive an appeal (assuming a half competant lawyer). A
recent case of a cyclist who recieved points on his driving licence
for a cycling offence had the charges dropped on appeal.

A more appropriate sentence would have been re-homing for the dog
with a competant owner and a ban on future dog ownership.

It's not so much this single case, rather the precedent it now sets
- magistrates are quite often a bit loopy, so I wouldn't want to
trust them with this kind of power.

Why were they dropped?

This was the original story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8149629.stm

I think it's a fundamental principle that you you can only receive driving
penaties for driving offences. If it isn't, it bl**dy well ought to be. ;-)

Tim

Jim A wrote:
Hog wrote:
Tim wrote:
SteveH wrote:
doetnietcomputeren wrote:

Banning someone from driving for non-driving offences is madness. I
can't see any justification for it at all.
As others have pointed out, it's a great deal of inconvenience,
dealt to someone who was causing inconvenience to others, over a
long period of time.

I think it's a sound punishment.
I think we have to be careful, given the number of new offences
introduced in recent years.

Put some metal in your plastic recycling bin - that can end up being
dealt with through the courts - are we now in a position where you
could be banned from driving for doing it?
Quite. Whatever the man's crimes, I doubt very much whether this
sentence will survive an appeal (assuming a half competant lawyer). A
recent case of a cyclist who recieved points on his driving licence
for a cycling offence had the charges dropped on appeal.

A more appropriate sentence would have been re-homing for the dog
with a competant owner and a ban on future dog ownership.

It's not so much this single case, rather the precedent it now sets -
magistrates are quite often a bit loopy, so I wouldn't want to trust
them with this kind of power.

Why were they dropped?

Seems to me that every time a cyclist is seen riding through
pedestrians on the pavement, ignoring red lights, riding at night
without lights etc they should be hauled up and treated exactly as if
they were using a car/motorcycle at the time.

That's like comparing waving a loaded gun in public and waving an
ice-cream cone.

No, it isn't.

Waving an ince-cream cone about is not an offence.

Cycling on the footway is an offence.

Risible.

A good word to describe your failed attempt at analogy.

It may not be practical to introduce a driving licence for cyclists on
the road but they should have to wear a Tufty Club badge

I'll bet the driver which cut me up on a roundabout yesterday was
insured, his vehicle taxed and had a valid driving license. These
things don't magically turn people in to considerate road users.

When you say "on a roundabout", do you mean on the carriageway of the
roundabout? Or was one (or more) of you on a footway adjacent to a roundabout
junction?

Only if it was the second of those is it anything at all to do with the point.

Tim wrote:
Hog wrote:
Tim wrote:
Quite. Whatever the man's crimes, I doubt very much whether this
sentence will survive an appeal (assuming a half competant lawyer). A
recent case of a cyclist who recieved points on his driving licence
for a cycling offence had the charges dropped on appeal.

A more appropriate sentence would have been re-homing for the dog
with a competant owner and a ban on future dog ownership.

It's not so much this single case, rather the precedent it now sets
- magistrates are quite often a bit loopy, so I wouldn't want to
trust them with this kind of power.

Why were they dropped?

This was the original story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8149629.stm

I think it's a fundamental principle that you you can only receive
driving penaties for driving offences. If it isn't, it bl**dy well
ought to be. ;-)

It isn't.

There was a case a few years ago where a *pedestrian*, charged with
"obstructing the police" by holding a large placard which warned approaching
drivers of a speed trap, was not only fined but had his driving licence endorsed.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Tim wrote:

This was the original story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8149629.stm

I think it's a fundamental principle that you you can only receive driving
penaties for driving offences. If it isn't, it bl**dy well ought to be. ;-)

It is. The circumstances (offences) which lead to points on a driving
licence are all explicitly defined in law.

The relevant act is the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Section 28
states that the offences that attract points are in schedule 2 and
that the number of points is in the last column. However, for completeness
you also need to note that Section 97 is what tells you that column 5
of Part I of the schedule sets out the circumstances in which
Section 28 is relevant. That is, column 5 tells you whether the
offence is one that results in obligatory or discretionary
disqualification, and it is those offences that attract points.

So then, you just need to read down schedule 2 and look at column 1
(the offences) and column 5 (whether they result in discretionary or
obligatory disqualification, ie, attract points). (Column 6 indicates
whether endorsement is obligatory - that's described in sections 27
and 96 respectively).

The first relevant offence is RTRA section 17(4), Use of special
road contrary to scheme or regulations. This could attract 3 points,
but column 5 says "if committed in respect of a motor vehicle", i.e. not if
committed in respect of a bicycle.

"If committed in respect of a motor vehicle" appears for the
offences RTRA sections 25, 28, 29 and 30 too, being the next four
eligible offences.

Next up, however is RTRA section 89, exceeding speed limit. Column 5
simply says that it's discretionary, and column 6 says it is
obligatory to endorse a licence. However, you'll know that actually
RTRA section 89 itself only applies to motor vehicles, so you can't
commit the offence on a bicycle, so the offence doesn't apply to
cyclists, so the penalty of committing the offence is irrelevant.

And so it continues, every offence in Schedule 2 either does not apply
to cyclists because of the definition of the offence, or the offence
only attracts points on a driving licence if committed in resect of a
motor vehicle.


There is a tiny exception in that there are some offences where you
can get points on your driving licence for non-traffic-type offences.
For these, you could get points even as a pedestrian, and in that case
you could (theoretically) get points on your driving licence for
something done as a cyclist. Go equipped to steal a car, for example,
and you can get 8 points, even (so far as I can see) if your going is
on foot, by bicycle, or on a pogo-stick.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|