Update on NV55PVL

[glenn forger]

Beg your pardon, it was "Inconsiderate":

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/pages/telford.htm

CTC member, Daniel Cadden was cycling fast downhill on a single-lane carriageway when he was stopped by police who believed that the position he had taken in his lane was forcing cars to cross the solid white line in the centre of the road illegally in order to overtake. But rather than stop the cars that had broken the law, the officers decided to charge Daniel Cadden with inconsiderate cycling.

Judge Robin Onions and two magistrates threw out the case after hearing police evidence. They accepted arguments put forward by Cadden's barrister, Francis Fitzgibbon, that there were contradictions in the police's evidence, that there was no legal obligation for cyclists to use cycle tracks and that causing only a short delay to drivers did not constitute "inconsiderate cycling".

The judge who sat at his first trial believed Daniel should have not been on the road at all and instead should have crossed three lanes of busy traffic to use a cycle path, which runs alongside the road where he was stopped.

 

[classic33]

Question for the OP.
Has what happened, made you less likely to report anything you may see to the police. If the answer is yes, then the police will be the ones losing out because of this.

Remember this bit. You have nothing to prove to the police now, they have to prove themselves to you. Because of one person.

 

[Hip Priest]

Drivers on mobiles kill far more people than burglars do.

Driving whilst using a mobile increases the likelihood of causing an accident, but the overwhelming majority of people who drive & dial will never cause an accident, let alone a death.

Burglars inflict suffering on everyone they steal from. To equate the two is asinine.

 

[Cycling Dan]

Question for the OP.
Has what happened, made you less likely to report anything you may see to the police. If the answer is yes, then the police will be the ones losing out because of this.

Remember this bit. You have nothing to prove to the police now, they have to prove themselves to you. Because of one person.

Yes is the answer, the treatment i received has made me think twice about reporting anything to the police no matter how serious purely for the fact i fear that i would be persecuted by the fact i made a reporting. I didn't expect what happened to happen. In my place i doubt anyone could have. Given a few weeks to forget the incident my answer may still change. However... i do strongly believe that what was said and done is not representative of the police in my area, he just happened to ruin it for the rest. Why he acted like he did, who knows.

 

[campbellab]

I really disagree with telling tales on people when they have not endangered you at all. Yes, if he drove into you or did something dangerous then by all means report the footage. All you are doing here is policing, which you shouldn't be doing unless you are a Policeman.

'Telling tales'? That contradicts directly with your last post that indicates you'd report someone beating their wife even though it doesn't endanger you.

You may want to go and look at a poem entitled 'First they came'

 

[Cycling Dan]

Well, that's cleared that up then.

You sound a thoroughly balanced, mature, sensible young man.

For a while I'd been worried you were some sort of unhinged headcam teen-vigilante warrior of the unpopular truth with a grudge against the Police and anyone else who disagreed with you. This could not be farther from the truth.

This last post proves me thoroughly wrong and I take back anything I might have thought or said earlier on the basis of anything you might have posted earlier. Or similar.

My apologies in full and without reserve. And then the same apologies three more times and a free slice of pizza.

I would still give some thought to that thing I said about using prepositions like shotgun pellets, though. Your meaning may not always come across to others as clearly as you think it does.

i truly don't know if you are sincere. If you are your post is much appreciated.

 

[glenn forger]

Driving whilst using a mobile increases the likelihood of causing an accident, but the overwhelming majority of people who drive & dial will never cause an accident, let alone a death.

Burglars inflict suffering on everyone they steal from. To equate the two is asinine.

You might as well claim drunk drivers usually don't kill. Whilst true, it's trying to defend the indefensible. A burglary results in annoyance and inconvenience and can frighten people, drivers on mobiles kill. A man changing a tyre was hit by a stupid girl fiddling with her phone and, five years to the day later, he died. She got three years. Interestingly, if she had deliberately aimed at him she couldn't have been charged with murder, he took too long to die:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-20941408

 

[Hip Priest]

A burglary results in annoyance and inconvenience and can frighten people

A burglary results in annoyance, inconvenience, financial loss (however much you're insured) and fear, for absolute everyone who is burgled. Burglars go about their business in the full knowledge of this.

drivers on mobiles kill.

Drivers not on mobiles kill. Drivers on mobiles kill statistically more, but still the overwhelming majority of drivers, whether on a phone or not, will never harm anyone. And drivers on mobile never do so with the intention to cause harm, unlike burglars.

I'm against mobile phone use whilst driving, but some of the views on here are so extreme, that I find myself defending people who do it. Please do not think that I condone it, because I don't.

 

[benb]

Are you honestly saying that you consider burglary and use of a phone to be as bad as each other ? If ever you were looking for definition between a crime and an offence I would say you have it there.

No, I would consider driving on the phone to be more serious.

Besides, you didn't make that distinction when you said you didn't think people should be "telling tales".

 

[benb]

No, don't be silly.

So do you think he should not have reported it?

 

[campbellab]

Drivers not on mobiles kill. Drivers on mobiles kill statistically more, but still the overwhelming majority of drivers, whether on a phone or not, will never harm anyone. And drivers on mobile never do so with the intention to cause harm, unlike burglars.

I'm against mobile phone use whilst driving, but some of the views on here are so extreme, that I find myself defending people who do it. Please do not think that I condone it, because I don't.

The problem arises not because people cant differentiate between the effects/intentions/morality of mobile phone use/burglary/whatever. Its the difference between the opinions on whether it should be reported.

Some people think that if something doesn't affect them they shouldn't report it - morally I think this is pretty repugnant. I imagine this is always turned on its head with an example like 'X is grievously beating up a vulnerable person do you report it?'.

It becomes more clear that what they actually mean is 'I will only report stuff that isn't affecting me when I judge that it is serious enough'. So you are basically relying on the individuals sense instead of following the laws of society that you live in. A lot of people wont report someone because it doesn't gain them anything. Reporting random mobile use is a pretty selfless act, giving up your time to hopefully prevent bad things happening to someone in the future.

Some of my reasons for not reporting crimes:

a) I can provide no real evidence therefore it wont amount to anything
b) I'm selfish and it takes up my time
c) Its done by someone that I know possibly like and I dont want to sour that relationship
d) I disagree with the law
e) I dont realistically see my report being acted upon

 

[BentMikey]

When a driver on the phone crashes, they do not cause an "accident", hip priest.

 

[Hip Priest]

When a driver on the phone crashes, they do not cause an "accident", hip priest.

Let's not get into that discussion again!

 

[BentMikey]

I really don't see why you need to be so difficult about using a different word. Is it necessary to be so stubbornly wrong?

 

[Hip Priest]

I really don't see why you need to be so difficult about using a different word. Is it necessary to be so stubbornly wrong?

Wrong according to you. Right according to the dictionary.