A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

QC defends filtering by cyclists.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 9th 10, 12:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:
I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.
Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.

Perhaps she thinks it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any guidance on
a particular mode of transport if that guidance is produced by
someone or some organisation who uses the transport.


Thankfully, the people who really matter, like law experts and the
police, hold sway and not the nutjobs who post on here.


You're being your usual self there.

A lawyer may or may not be an expert in a particular area of the law. The
likelihood that a QC has reached the dizzying heights of his profession
through casework involving cycling is pretty low. IOW, the gentleman
concerned (with whose view I didn't disagree) was probably speaking from his
position as a cyclist who has studied the law on road traffic rather than as
a QC. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the Road Traffic Acts
(luckily enough).

Similar arguments apply to the police; whilst there are undoubted experts
among the police as to which section of which Act covers burglary, or
buggery, or using a motor vehicle with a defective tyre, that does not confer
"authority" in the sense you seem to be suggesting.

To be clear: the courts - and not lawyers or the police - operate the rules.
Lawyers and the police do their best to persuade the courts of their cases.
Ads
  #12  
Old January 9th 10, 02:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

On 9 Jan, 11:24, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
*On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:
I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.
*Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.
Perhaps she thinks it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any guidance on
a particular mode of transport if that guidance is produced by
someone or some organisation who uses the transport. *


Thankfully, the people who really matter, like law experts and the
police, hold sway and not the nutjobs who post on here.


You're being your usual self there.

A lawyer may or may not be an expert in a particular area of the law. The
likelihood that a QC has reached the dizzying heights of his profession
through casework involving cycling is pretty low. IOW, the gentleman
concerned (with whose view I didn't disagree) was probably speaking from his
position as a cyclist who has studied the law on road traffic rather than as
a QC


I think the point of his letter was to refute the "legal advice" given
by the lorry driver in his letter. I am sure that even you would agree
that a QC may have more of a working knowledge of the law than your
average trucker. If he wasn't writing from his position as a QC, then
I'm not sure why he felt the need to append his status to his
signature.

--
Simon Mason
  #13  
Old January 10th 10, 12:21 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

wrote:
On 9 Jan, 11:24, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:
I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.
Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.
Perhaps she thinks it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any guidance on
a particular mode of transport if that guidance is produced by
someone or some organisation who uses the transport.
Thankfully, the people who really matter, like law experts and the
police, hold sway and not the nutjobs who post on here.

You're being your usual self there.

A lawyer may or may not be an expert in a particular area of the law. The
likelihood that a QC has reached the dizzying heights of his profession
through casework involving cycling is pretty low. IOW, the gentleman
concerned (with whose view I didn't disagree) was probably speaking from his
position as a cyclist who has studied the law on road traffic rather than as
a QC


I think the point of his letter was to refute the "legal advice" given
by the lorry driver in his letter.


Not difficult to do. Would anyone have even taken the previous "advice"
seriously?

I am sure that even you would agree
that a QC may have more of a working knowledge of the law than your
average trucker.


No, not necessarily, as long as we are talking about traffic law and more
particularly (for instance) about the law relating to lorries (which is more
or less a closed book except to those in the industry and those who have to
routinely enforce the rules relating to that industry.

I would certainly expect a lawyer to know where and how to gain knowledge of
it quickly when required, but that's a different matter.

Can you imagine how much "law" there is in force in England? It is impossible
to know more than a small fraction of it in the sense of holdiung it in one's
memory.

If he wasn't writing from his position as a QC, then
I'm not sure why he felt the need to append his status to his
signature.


Neither am I. Sometimes people sign letters to the press "Reverend" or "Major
(retired)" or "Capt. [name] RN (retired)".

What extra force they imagine is added to their scribblings by those
additions is an equal mystery.
  #14  
Old January 12th 10, 12:34 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Guy Cuthbertson[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

In article ,
says...

Good riposte to a lorry driver who complained about cyclists passing him on
his *rhs* while he was stationary in traffic, including one by a Queen's
Counsel.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2112/001wju.jpg

So when there's ambiguity about whether a particular behaviour by
cyclists is legal or not, you want it to be determined to be legal.
Tell me, when there's ambiguity about whether a particular behaviour by
motorists or motorcyclists is legal or not, do you want that to be ruled
as legal as well, or do you think that making it illegal would be
another useful "deterrent" to driving (as you admit that bus lanes are)?

And BTW, these "deterrents" to driving that you support: what about
those who have no reasonable alternative but to drive? Why should they
be continually and deliberately delayed just because you believe that
those who *do* have an alternative should be bullied into making the
"right" choice? Why not just improve public transport, thus meaning
that people choose it anyway without any of this needless nastiness or
negativity?
  #15  
Old January 13th 10, 05:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:

I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.


Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.


Perhaps she thinks it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any guidance on
a particular mode of transport if that guidance is produced by
someone or some organisation who uses the transport.

It seems to be a common view - I guess that's why so many motorists
ignore so much of the highway code and road law.

regards, Ian SMith



I just do not understand this obsession with "filtering" which
cyclists are allowed to do (in their opinion) where there is a total
lack of any definition or official endorsement whatsoever.


Even the people here cannot give a common explanation of what the term
means.

If driving along cycle paths was not specifically against the law -
and motorists decided that as they use transport they know that it
would be OK as long as they gave it a nice name : "pathing" - then
"pathing" would be OK would it?

That is exactly the same argument.

As soon as cyclists realise that they should follow the HC and law as
other road users are expected to do then the roads will be safer.

No overtaking on the left when there is no specific lane in which to
do so, and no weaving in and out between and across lanes. I think
that cyclists call these actions : filtering.

--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

  #16  
Old January 13th 10, 05:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 01:03:27 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 8 Jan, 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
*On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:


I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.


*Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.


Perhaps she thinks it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any guidance on
a particular mode of transport if that guidance is produced by
someone or some organisation who uses the transport. *


Thankfully, the people who really matter, like law experts and the
police, hold sway and not the nutjobs who post on here.


I agree - I assume you mean Mr Justice Griffith Williams who said:

"There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
wear one."


I also see that your pet QC thinks he knows better than the judge in
that particular case.

Perhaps he is not the transport legal expert you believe he is.


--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

  #17  
Old January 13th 10, 05:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 05:48:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 9 Jan, 11:24, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
On 8 Jan, 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:
*On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:
I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.
*Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.
Perhaps she thinks it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any guidance on
a particular mode of transport if that guidance is produced by
someone or some organisation who uses the transport. *


Thankfully, the people who really matter, like law experts and the
police, hold sway and not the nutjobs who post on here.


You're being your usual self there.

A lawyer may or may not be an expert in a particular area of the law. The
likelihood that a QC has reached the dizzying heights of his profession
through casework involving cycling is pretty low. IOW, the gentleman
concerned (with whose view I didn't disagree) was probably speaking from his
position as a cyclist who has studied the law on road traffic rather than as
a QC


I think the point of his letter was to refute the "legal advice" given
by the lorry driver in his letter. I am sure that even you would agree
that a QC may have more of a working knowledge of the law than your
average trucker.



As you say "he may have" - he certainly won't necessarily have.

There are probably people who post here who have a much better
understanding of the law and cycling than any old QC you pick at
random.



--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

  #18  
Old January 13th 10, 05:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:06:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 8 Jan, 17:04, Judith Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 05:42:48 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On 8 Jan, 13:35, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:04:32 -0000


"Simon Mason" wrote:
Good riposte to a lorry driver who complained about cyclists passing
him on his *rhs* while he was stationary in traffic, including one by
a Queen's Counsel.


http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2112/001wju.jpg


I'm not sure that publishing it in Cycling Weekly is going to get the
message across where it's really needed though.


Well, most of the people who don't agree with cyclists filtering seem
to crop up on this NG, so I am doing my bit!


Ah yes - one of the cyclists favourite terms : "filtering".

I didn't actually see the word filtering in the article - are you
saying that when a cyclists says I was filtering - they mean that they
were overtaking on the RHS?


Yes and sometimes on the inside if there is a cycle there.

I see that he also mentions "the recommended primary position for
cycling on the road" - recommended by cyclists is what he means.


Well, he *is* a QC and thus an expert in law.



So all QCs are experts in all aspects of law are they?

You are naïve.

I see that he has disagreed with the judge on at least one case
regarding a cyclist when he had had no involvement in the case.- I
didn't see that he volunteered to appear pro bono in any appeal.

In fact I cannot find him being involved in any case involving a
cyclist. Do you know of any?

Perhaps he is not the expert on the law, transport, and cycling which
you believe, after all.





--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

  #19  
Old January 13th 10, 06:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.


"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...

No overtaking on the left when there is no specific lane in which to
do so, and no weaving in and out between and across lanes. I think
that cyclists call these actions : filtering.


As a cyclist I will only ever filter on the right, even if there is a cycle
lane.

Weaving in and out and passing on the left is dangerous and stupid.


  #20  
Old January 13th 10, 06:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default QC defends filtering by cyclists.

On 13 Jan, 17:05, "mileburner" wrote:
"Judith Smith" wrote in message

...



No overtaking on the left when there is no specific lane in which to
do so, and no weaving in and out between and across lanes. *I think
that cyclists call these actions : filtering.


As a cyclist I will only ever filter on the right, even if there is a cycle
lane.

Weaving in and out and passing on the left is dangerous and stupid.


I usually overtake on the right and then time it so I can go back to
riding a metre from the kerb by pulling in to the left in front of the
car that has just set off.
If there is a cycle lane on the left though, I will use that, because
if I get knocked off in a cycle lane, it is easier to claim against
the car driver.
--
Simon Mason
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Velonews defends the pursuit - and I god damn agree 100% Anton Berlin Racing 39 November 24th 09 05:15 AM
Vaughters defends... Nobody Racing 4 August 17th 09 02:03 PM
SPAM Canadian Mountain Biker Defends His Illegal trail-Building fEkLaaar Social Issues 0 October 28th 06 12:53 AM
TdF: Spoiler: Jens Defends his jersey Simon Brooke UK 18 July 12th 05 11:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.