Just a fine for cyclist that ran down a solicitor

On 06/07/2012 17:32, thirty-six wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 14:05, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece

Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.

I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went

wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?

"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).
The witness said he did not pass a red light.

"The witness"?
You mean "the defendant".

An independent witness (perhaps more than one)

Thank you for the direct admission, you don't know.

I wasn't there and am not a witness. I know only what I am told about the
incident, but that matters not a jot, since I am not giving evidence.

said that he did pass a red
light. Defendants are notoriously unreliable on their own guilt in cases
where independent witness accounts differ from theirs.

Who is this witness, what is their training?

So you have to be *trained* to be a witness nowadays?

That must make prosecuting crime very difficult. After all, a hundred people
might see something happen but they aren't really witnesses unless they've
been trained in being a witness.

I wonder whether that change in the law was properly thought through?

Am I supposed to assume
he or she has no passing relationship to the injured party or has that
person been questioned on this matter and their independance verified?

You have totally vindicated my previous post in which I wondered whether you
would smell a rat, although I thought you might claim a relationship between
the victim and the CPS lawyer rather than between the victim and A Random
(albeit untrained) Witness.

You didn't let me down.

Did you now that the Great Train Robbers were all innocent (according to
their own accounts)? And James Hanratty? Apparently the DNA evidence must be
wrong on that one. And Peter Sutcliffe - he pleaded NG on some ground or
other. In fact, the prisons are full of people who deny having done anything
wrong. What's going on with British justice, eh?

Most prosecutions are unlawfully brought.

Really?

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.
You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.

It has been assumed.

Eye witnesses. The incident was also captured on video.

As I have yet to be directed I can only assume that the video of which
fasinates you so isnot entirely supportive of the charge.

You would be on very slippery ground in "assuming" that. Not that it really
matters all that much since happily, neither of us get to decide the case.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.

That has not occurred, as reported. It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.

Arrogant, self-centred, scofflaw cyclists come to everyone else's. It's not
as though a cyclist passing a red light as though it didn't exist isn't part
of everyone's daily experience in London, is it?

Traffic control signals are not pedestrian crossings.

Whatever else they may not be, red traffic lights do not mean "Go" for
cyclists or any other form of vehicular traffic. They mean "Stop". And not
"Stop unless you don't feel like".

In any case it
cannot be expected by a reasonable man thet the brakes on a bicycle
should have the same performance as that required by a motor-car or
that a rider should use those brakes to such an extent that he risks
injuring hinself.

Why not?

The answer is not to pit yourself in that position and instead, to... you
know... proceed carefully, considerately and lawfully (radical for the
average cyclist, I know... perhaps too radical).

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.

There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.

Au contraire. The evidence has been given and is even captured on video.

WHERE?

Ask the court. They heard and saw the evidence.

I'll let you into a secret: I wasn't at the trial of the Yorkshire Ripper
either, but that doesn't mean that *he* isn't guilty.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.

Why should one ask oneself that?

I believe his wife wanted him to retire.

And?

He likes the pubs around Holburn.

And?

I hope this cyclist appeals, there's plenty of oppoytunity to get this
overturned

We'll see.

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.

Looks like a stitch up.

Does it?

Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.

Are you sure your irrational musings actually *count* as "thought"?

See above. You didn't disappoint.

Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:06:21 +0100, JNugent
wrote:


I dare say that the victim will be very well represented in court.
Let's all of us hope he (and his counsel) take his assailant to the
cleaners.

If he is one of the many bicycle riders with no insurance that may be
pointless. Unlike the victim of an uninsured driver, who can claim
from the motor insurance broker for personal injury, the victim of an
uninsured cyclist has no effective method of obtaining compensation no
matter how devastating their injuries.

The cyclist is in a high up position in a bank, so he may well be insured
and in any case should have enough cash to be worth a claim against.

On Jul 6, 5:41*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 06/07/2012 15:00, DavidR wrote:







On Jul 6, 11:41 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

The CCTV shows the cyclist go through a red light and hit the victim in 'the
middle of the road' at high speed.

Then it could be argued that, like the driver that was fined for
merely having bald tyres, he should be fined for going through a red
light. After all, people like Nugent keep saying that drivers should
be punished for the offense, not the consequences.

* the cyclist ... evidently travelling at high speed (in twelth gear out of
26 and the cctv backs it up)

The gear is just sensationalist reporting. Anyway, it said "12th out
of its 20 gears" (no bike has 26). So that is a double front and 10
rear and if numbered from small to large means big front and 2nd rear
were engaged. About 60 inch effective wheel diameter. 26mph, eh? This
would have required his legs to whizz around at 400rpm.

If you checked simple detaiols like that before bleating, we would be
spared some of your idiotic comments. But I suppose we have to put up
with your poor maths skills.

Since the average speed of London traffic is 8mph travelling at 26 is the
equivalent of riding at over 90 when the traffic moves at 30.

I hope your maths never gets near children. Are you really unaware of
the difference between speed when moving and average speed?

Wriggling ****.

I expect that if either party had been distracted in that manner it
would have been reported in more papers than the Sun.

On Jul 6, 5:53*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 17:32, thirty-six wrote:









On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 14:05, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? *You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. *Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. *In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?
"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).
The witness said he did not pass a red light.
"The witness"?
You mean "the defendant".
An independent witness (perhaps more than one)
Thank you for the direct admission, you don't know.

I wasn't there and am not a witness. I know only what I am told about the
incident, but that matters not a jot, since I am not giving evidence.

said that he did pass a red
light. Defendants are notoriously unreliable on their own guilt in cases
where independent witness accounts differ from theirs.
Who is this witness, what is their training?

So you have to be *trained* to be a witness nowadays?

That must make prosecuting crime very difficult. After all, a hundred people
might see something happen but they aren't really witnesses unless they've
been trained in being a witness.

I wonder whether that change in the law was properly thought through?

Am I supposed to assume
he or she has no passing relationship to the injured party or has that
person been questioned on this matter and their independance verified?

You have totally vindicated my previous post in which I wondered whether you
would smell a rat, although I thought you might claim a relationship between
the victim and the CPS lawyer rather than between the victim and A Random
(albeit untrained) Witness.

You didn't let me down.

Did you now that the Great Train Robbers were all innocent (according to
their own accounts)? And James Hanratty? Apparently the DNA evidence must be
wrong on that one. And Peter Sutcliffe - he pleaded NG on some ground or
other. In fact, the prisons are full of people who deny having done anything
wrong. What's going on with British justice, eh?
Most prosecutions are unlawfully brought.

Really?

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.
You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.
It has been assumed.
Eye witnesses. The incident was also captured on video.
As I have yet to be directed I can only assume that the video of which
fasinates you so isnot entirely supportive of the charge.

You would be on very slippery ground in "assuming" that. Not that it really
matters all that much since happily, neither of us get to decide the case..

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.
That has not occurred, as reported. *It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. *No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.
Arrogant, self-centred, scofflaw cyclists come to everyone else's. It's not
as though a cyclist passing a red light as though it didn't exist isn't part
of everyone's daily experience in London, is it?
Traffic control signals are not pedestrian crossings.

Whatever else they may not be, red traffic lights do not mean "Go" for
cyclists or any other form of vehicular traffic. They mean "Stop". And not
"Stop unless you don't feel like".

In any case it
cannot be expected by a reasonable man thet the brakes on a bicycle
should have the same performance as that required by a motor-car or
that a rider should use those brakes to such an extent that he risks
injuring hinself.

Why not?

The answer is not to pit yourself in that position and instead, to... you
know... proceed carefully, considerately and lawfully (radical for the
average cyclist, I know... perhaps too radical).

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.
There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.
Au contraire. The evidence has been given and is even captured on video.
WHERE?

Ask the court. They heard and saw the evidence.

I'll let you into a secret: I wasn't at the trial of the Yorkshire Ripper
either, but that doesn't mean that *he* isn't guilty.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. *His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.
Why should one ask oneself that?
I believe his wife wanted him to retire.
And?
He likes the pubs around Holburn.

And?

I hope this cyclist appeals, there's plenty of oppoytunity to get this
overturned

We'll see.

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. *The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. *After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.
Does it?
Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.
Are you sure your irrational musings actually *count* as "thought"?

See above. You didn't disappoint.

So you have seen no evidence and you did not attend court ensuring
correct procedure in its assembly and process, yet you know-it-all. I
see.

On 06/07/2012 23:49, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 6, 5:53 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 17:32, thirty-six wrote:









On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 14:05, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?
"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).
The witness said he did not pass a red light.
"The witness"?
You mean "the defendant".
An independent witness (perhaps more than one)
Thank you for the direct admission, you don't know.

I wasn't there and am not a witness. I know only what I am told about the
incident, but that matters not a jot, since I am not giving evidence.

said that he did pass a red
light. Defendants are notoriously unreliable on their own guilt in cases
where independent witness accounts differ from theirs.
Who is this witness, what is their training?

So you have to be *trained* to be a witness nowadays?

That must make prosecuting crime very difficult. After all, a hundred people
might see something happen but they aren't really witnesses unless they've
been trained in being a witness.

I wonder whether that change in the law was properly thought through?

Am I supposed to assume
he or she has no passing relationship to the injured party or has that
person been questioned on this matter and their independance verified?

You have totally vindicated my previous post in which I wondered whether you
would smell a rat, although I thought you might claim a relationship between
the victim and the CPS lawyer rather than between the victim and A Random
(albeit untrained) Witness.

You didn't let me down.

Did you now that the Great Train Robbers were all innocent (according to
their own accounts)? And James Hanratty? Apparently the DNA evidence must be
wrong on that one. And Peter Sutcliffe - he pleaded NG on some ground or
other. In fact, the prisons are full of people who deny having done anything
wrong. What's going on with British justice, eh?
Most prosecutions are unlawfully brought.

Really?

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.
You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.
It has been assumed.
Eye witnesses. The incident was also captured on video.
As I have yet to be directed I can only assume that the video of which
fasinates you so isnot entirely supportive of the charge.

You would be on very slippery ground in "assuming" that. Not that it really
matters all that much since happily, neither of us get to decide the case.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.
That has not occurred, as reported. It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.
Arrogant, self-centred, scofflaw cyclists come to everyone else's. It's not
as though a cyclist passing a red light as though it didn't exist isn't part
of everyone's daily experience in London, is it?
Traffic control signals are not pedestrian crossings.

Whatever else they may not be, red traffic lights do not mean "Go" for
cyclists or any other form of vehicular traffic. They mean "Stop". And not
"Stop unless you don't feel like".

In any case it
cannot be expected by a reasonable man thet the brakes on a bicycle
should have the same performance as that required by a motor-car or
that a rider should use those brakes to such an extent that he risks
injuring hinself.

Why not?

The answer is not to pit yourself in that position and instead, to... you
know... proceed carefully, considerately and lawfully (radical for the
average cyclist, I know... perhaps too radical).

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.
There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.
Au contraire. The evidence has been given and is even captured on video.
WHERE?

Ask the court. They heard and saw the evidence.

I'll let you into a secret: I wasn't at the trial of the Yorkshire Ripper
either, but that doesn't mean that *he* isn't guilty.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.
Why should one ask oneself that?
I believe his wife wanted him to retire.
And?
He likes the pubs around Holburn.

And?

I hope this cyclist appeals, there's plenty of oppoytunity to get this
overturned

We'll see.

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.
Does it?
Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.
Are you sure your irrational musings actually *count* as "thought"?

See above. You didn't disappoint.

So you have seen no evidence and you did not attend court ensuring
correct procedure in its assembly and process, yet you know-it-all. I
see.

I know what the verdict was.

So do you.

On 6 jul, 09:33, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:31 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.

However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece

Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? *You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

I have never said that. *Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. *In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went
through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. *His
use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. *The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. *After all, a
rich cyclist could say that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Blow it out your arse, you moronic troll cretin

On 6 jul, 18:41, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 06/07/2012 15:00, DavidR wrote:



On Jul 6, 11:41 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

The CCTV shows the cyclist go through a red light and hit the victim in 'the
middle of the road' at high speed.

Then it could be argued that, like the driver that was fined for
merely having bald tyres, he should be fined for going through a red
light. After all, people like Nugent keep saying that drivers should
be punished for the offense, not the consequences.

* the cyclist ... evidently travelling at high speed (in twelth gear out of
26 and the cctv backs it up)

The gear is just sensationalist reporting. Anyway, it said "12th out
of its 20 gears" (no bike has 26). So that is a double front and 10
rear and if numbered from small to large means big front and 2nd rear
were engaged. About 60 inch effective wheel diameter. 26mph, eh? This
would have required his legs to whizz around at 400rpm.

If you checked simple detaiols like that before bleating, we would be
spared some of your idiotic comments. But I suppose we have to put up
with your poor maths skills.

Since the average speed of London traffic is 8mph travelling at 26 is the
equivalent of riding at over 90 when the traffic moves at 30.

I hope your maths never gets near children. Are you really unaware of
the difference between speed when moving and average speed?

Wriggling ****.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

You will be wriggling after I have subjected you to your therapy on
Monday.

On 6 jul, 18:45, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 06/07/2012 17:32, thirty-six wrote:



On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 14:05, thirty-six wrote:

On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...cle3464777.ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? *You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. *Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. *In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?
"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).
The witness said he did not pass a red light.

"The witness"?

You mean "the defendant".

An independent witness (perhaps more than one)

Thank you for the direct admission, you don't know.

said that he did pass a red
light. Defendants are notoriously unreliable on their own guilt in cases
where independent witness accounts differ from theirs.

Who is this witness, what is their training? *Am I supposed to assume
he or she has no passing relationship to the injured party or has that
person been questioned on this matter and their independance verified?

Did you now that the Great Train Robbers were all innocent (according to
their own accounts)? And James Hanratty? Apparently the DNA evidence must be
wrong on that one. And Peter Sutcliffe - he pleaded NG on some ground or
other. In fact, the prisons are full of people who deny having done anything
wrong. What's going on with British justice, eh?

Most prosecutions are unlawfully brought.

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.
You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.
It has been assumed.

Eye witnesses. The incident was also captured on video.

As I have yet to be directed I can only assume that the video of which
fasinates you so isnot entirely supportive of the charge.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.
That has not occurred, as reported. *It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. *No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist.
Lemmings come to mind.

Arrogant, self-centred, scofflaw cyclists come to everyone else's. It's not
as though a cyclist passing a red light as though it didn't exist isn't part
of everyone's daily experience in London, is it?

Traffic control signals are not pedestrian crossings. *In any case it
cannot be expected by a reasonable man thet the brakes on a bicycle
should have the same performance as that required by a motor-car or
that a rider should use those brakes to such an extent that he risks
injuring hinself.

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.
There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.

Au contraire. The evidence has been given and is even captured on video.

WHERE?

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. *His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.
Why should one ask oneself that?
I believe his wife wanted him to retire.

And?

He likes the pubs around Holburn.
I hope this cyclist appeals, there's plenty of oppoytunity to get this
overturned

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. *The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. *After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.
Does it?
Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.

Are you sure your irrational musings actually *count* as "thought"?

**** me, I thought Cwispin could wriggle, but this takes the cake.

Wellington would have promoted you.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

Dave asking a male contributor to anally penetrate him. Finally his
obsession with 'bumchums' and 'gays' is explained. He is a rampant
homo.

On Jul 7, 12:28*am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 23:49, thirty-six wrote:









On Jul 6, 5:53 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 17:32, thirty-six wrote:

On Jul 6, 4:03 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 14:05, thirty-six wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:20 am, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2012 11:07, thirty-six wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Despite causing brain damage to the pedestrian that he mowed down at
26mph the cyclist does not even get a ban from the road or prison
time, merely a fine.
However, civil proceedings are to follow, so I hope his fridge
freezer insurance is in order since the loss of a career as a
solicitor is going to be very expensive, and the payout will come
from every pocket in the land (in effect)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public...le3464777..ece
Do make up your mind. If a pedestrian steps out into a road right in
front of an oncoming vehicle who is to blame when they crash? *You and
other motorists here keep telling us its the pedestrian's fault if
they are hit by a car.
I have never said that. *Pedestrians are usually visible before they step
into the road and astute road users know that and manage to avoid them,
certainly I do, as do millions of road users every day
All road users do some really stupid things, and it is all road users
responsibility to make every effort to reduce the likelihood of that
becoming a crash. *In this case the cyclists speed was excessive and he went
wHY was his speed excessive, do you mean for a non-motorised vehicle?
"Excessive" relates to his speed in the circumstances (ie, approaching a red
traffic light and not being able or prepared to stop).
The witness said he did not pass a red light.
"The witness"?
You mean "the defendant".
An independent witness (perhaps more than one)
Thank you for the direct admission, you don't know.

I wasn't there and am not a witness. I know only what I am told about the
incident, but that matters not a jot, since I am not giving evidence.

said that he did pass a red
light. Defendants are notoriously unreliable on their own guilt in cases
where independent witness accounts differ from theirs.
Who is this witness, what is their training?

So you have to be *trained* to be a witness nowadays?

That must make prosecuting crime very difficult. After all, a hundred people
might see something happen but they aren't really witnesses unless they've
been trained in being a witness.

I wonder whether that change in the law was properly thought through?

Am I supposed to assume
he or she has no passing relationship to the injured party or has that
person been questioned on this matter and their independance verified?

You have totally vindicated my previous post in which I wondered whether you
would smell a rat, although I thought you might claim a relationship between
the victim and the CPS lawyer rather than between the victim and A Random
(albeit untrained) Witness.

You didn't let me down.

Did you now that the Great Train Robbers were all innocent (according to
their own accounts)? And James Hanratty? Apparently the DNA evidence must be
wrong on that one. And Peter Sutcliffe - he pleaded NG on some ground or
other. In fact, the prisons are full of people who deny having done anything
wrong. What's going on with British justice, eh?
Most prosecutions are unlawfully brought.

Really?

through a red light, as a regular commuter he must know that pedestrians
There is no evidence he passed a red light, he denies it.
You are confused. There certainly *is* evidence that he passed a red light.
It has been assumed.
Eye witnesses. The incident was also captured on video.
As I have yet to be directed I can only assume that the video of which
fasinates you so isnot entirely supportive of the charge.

You would be on very slippery ground in "assuming" that. Not that it really
matters all that much since happily, neither of us get to decide the case.

The suggestion would and could not have been made unless a witness saw it and
provided that evidence.
That has not occurred, as reported. *It seems to me thet there has
been an assumption by those crossing at an unrecognised crossing point
(without signals) that vehicular traffic is interupted by lights
making it safe for them to cross without attention. *No-one is
reported as a witness seeing a red light in the face of the cyclist..
Lemmings come to mind.
Arrogant, self-centred, scofflaw cyclists come to everyone else's. It's not
as though a cyclist passing a red light as though it didn't exist isn't part
of everyone's daily experience in London, is it?
Traffic control signals are not pedestrian crossings.

Whatever else they may not be, red traffic lights do not mean "Go" for
cyclists or any other form of vehicular traffic. They mean "Stop". And not
"Stop unless you don't feel like".

In any case it
cannot be expected by a reasonable man thet the brakes on a bicycle
should have the same performance as that required by a motor-car or
that a rider should use those brakes to such an extent that he risks
injuring hinself.

Why not?

The answer is not to pit yourself in that position and instead, to... you
know... proceed carefully, considerately and lawfully (radical for the
average cyclist, I know... perhaps too radical).

All manner of accused people deny having committed the offence with which
they are charged. Their denial (and this is where you are confused) is not
evidence.
There has been no evidence of a red light being seen, reported.
Au contraire. The evidence has been given and is even captured on video.
WHERE?

Ask the court. They heard and saw the evidence.

I'll let you into a secret: I wasn't at the trial of the Yorkshire Ripper
either, but that doesn't mean that *he* isn't guilty.

cross the road a lot in London, he had time to shout, yet did not stop. *His
One should ask oneself why a successful solicitor "who had finally got
to the top of the greasy pole" in the words of his lawful wife would
cross a busy 6 lane road without the use of a signalled crossing.
Why should one ask oneself that?
I believe his wife wanted him to retire.
And?
He likes the pubs around Holburn.

And?

I hope this cyclist appeals, there's plenty of oppoytunity to get this
overturned

We'll see.

use of the road was dangerous, and he should be banned from using it, at
least temporarily.
He got pretty close to the maximum sentence for the ofence he was charged
with. *The tariff for this offence is too low for its gravity. *After all, a
rich cyclist could pay that out of his daily bonus, I am sure.
Looks like a stitch up.
Does it?
Initial thoughts question whether his wife is related to the
magistrate.
Are you sure your irrational musings actually *count* as "thought"?

See above. You didn't disappoint.

So you have seen no evidence and you did not attend court ensuring
correct procedure in its assembly and process, yet you know-it-all. *I
see.

I know what the verdict was.

So do you.

No I don't.

After checking the reports it appears that "careless cycling" was the
the verdict. I think it more likely that careless walking should have
been the correct verdict.

On 07/07/2012 05:35, Justin wrote:
On 6 jul, 18:41, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 06/07/2012 15:00, DavidR wrote:



On Jul 6, 11:41 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

The CCTV shows the cyclist go through a red light and hit the victim in 'the
middle of the road' at high speed.

Then it could be argued that, like the driver that was fined for
merely having bald tyres, he should be fined for going through a red
light. After all, people like Nugent keep saying that drivers should
be punished for the offense, not the consequences.

the cyclist ... evidently travelling at high speed (in twelth gear out of
26 and the cctv backs it up)

The gear is just sensationalist reporting. Anyway, it said "12th out
of its 20 gears" (no bike has 26). So that is a double front and 10
rear and if numbered from small to large means big front and 2nd rear
were engaged. About 60 inch effective wheel diameter. 26mph, eh? This
would have required his legs to whizz around at 400rpm.

If you checked simple detaiols like that before bleating, we would be
spared some of your idiotic comments. But I suppose we have to put up
with your poor maths skills.

Since the average speed of London traffic is 8mph travelling at 26 is the
equivalent of riding at over 90 when the traffic moves at 30.

I hope your maths never gets near children. Are you really unaware of
the difference between speed when moving and average speed?

Wriggling ****.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

You will be wriggling after I have subjected you to your therapy on
Monday.

You're forgetting Algernon the 6 ft invisible rabbit. He can turn very
nasty when miffed.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University