Magistrate insanity

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.

 

In communiqué <>, Kevin

If you were that close it might have been easier just to turn the amps
down to 10.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

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

 

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

 

Morrists rarely if ever drive through pedestrians on the pavement. If they
do they can be traced by their 'number plates' and have their 'licence'
endorsed.

I expect the magistrate would have more ense than to think that.

 

The trouble with extending punishments across like this is that it's all too
easy to foresee the possibility of you falling off your pushbike after a
beer too many and losing your driving licence. Would think that reaonable?

Tim

 

I'm not entirely sure that a pre-requisite of punishment is that the
punished thinks it's 'reasonable'.

If society thinks the punishment is reasonable, surely that's sufficient?


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Tunnel visioned (we're never wrong) cunts who ride bikes should've be hung
at birth, but failing that, sterilised at puberty in case they decide to
procreate later in life and spawn another fucking cyclist.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

**** me, Auvache is becoming the new VoR.

 

Then I think you're being incredibly shortsighted. This to my mind is
setting an incredibly dangerous precedent and those who approve of it are
like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Tim

 

We all have if this becomes commonplace.

It's a bloody stupid punishment. The owner & the dog clearly have problems.
As I said earlier, a better punishment would have been rehoming for the dog
& banning the owner from keeping dogs in future.

Tim

 

Quite. Some women QCs are pot ugly.

 

took a blunt brush and painted...

Please explain how failing to cycle through a red light would result in
death.

Please explain how riding at night without lights makes one safer and reduces
the chance of not being seen.

 

Any time the motor vehicle behind you decides to run the red.
This is true of the first few motor vehicles after the red light at
many junctions and crossings - you have to wait for a law abiding one
to block the others, and even they get rammed from behind with
alarming frequency.

Well, the statistics show that unlit cyclists are less likely to be
involved in accidents at night than lit ones.
I don't know the reason(s), but I could make some guesses.
Maybe the knowledge that they are unlit makes them more cautious?

 

No it isn't.

Ah, you agree.

You can also lose your licence for offences unrelated to motor vehicles,
driving, or roads and traffic - such as failing to pay child maintenance.

 

Now look.... using logic and reasoned thinking jut won't do.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

So now ignorance is an excuse?

I'd prefer to have them shot.

Getting a bit ahead of yourself there I reckon.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Probably because they're on the pavement.

 

I suspect that "A lighter sentence" and "Let off" are two different things.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a penalty can be only be applied to someone with a driving licence, how
can it be fair or reaonable? Driving penalties should be for driving
offences.

Driving penalties for non-driving offences are ludicrous and clearly wrong.
Only idiots would argue otherwise.

Tim