|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
QC defends filtering by cyclists.
|
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
QC defends filtering by cyclists.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 04:15 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 |