[Closed] Can this be right?

Ah yes, found it now...

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/beardy-cyclist ]

Smee - member

*** beardy **** cyclist

Yes, you seem to be just the sort of person to be teaching other people 'advanced' driving skills....

{EDIT} Do'h - double post...

Is this still going on?

Its really simple. Gs mate got fairly banned.

Some other cases [i]on the surface[/i] seem to have been dealt with leniently but this is what we have a judicial system for. it is perfectly possible to kill when driving without committing a serious offence.

G wants to spuriously link various other things to his mates case to try to prove his mate got unfairly banned. Its like comparing apples to sheep.

ITS REALLY SIMPLE - IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME DON'T DO THE CRIME.

Now stop bleating!

Zokes - Correct. I am exactly the type of person to teach that stuff. That's why I do it.

Do you drive TJ? i don't suppose you have gone over the speed limit - Ever? have you ay? be honest!

G wants to spuriously link various other things to his mates case to try to prove his mate got unfairly banned. Its like comparing apples to sheep.

Totally wrong TJ, I don't know how many times I have to say it, what I am saying is that the sentencing does seem to be disproportinate in any number of cases. Those of special interest to me in no particular order

a) My mate
b) myself
c) Fellow cyclists offended against
d) Motorists generally
e) Chav type serial offenders

I mean for example, near to where I live the local chavvery set up on a nightly basis near to the towns sorting office, which is effectively a very large roundabout in a one way system. All night long they scream up and down, do doughnuts and generally piss people off. Thats every night of the week. This is no more than 500 yards from the towns central Police Station. You can park up and watch and you will see every driving offence in the book being committed continuously. Action taken? Nil: Having been pressed any number of times the Police response is this is so we know where they are, its not in a residential area and we can keep an eye on them. So hows my mates serial offending different from theirs then?

G wants to spuriously link various other things to his mates case to try to prove his mate got unfairly banned. Its like comparing apples to sheep.

Now stop bleating!

Is that a deliberate pun? 😉

it is perfectly possible to kill when driving without committing a serious offence

The bloke from Rhyl was driving too fast for the conditions with three bald tyres. That's three counts of driving with a defective vehicle, and one of dangerous / careless driving, and that's before he's hit anything. That's 12-15 points in one fell swoop. If G's mate deserved his 12 points for 4 speeding offences, then before the Rhyl guy even hit the unfortunate cyclists he should have received at least 12 points in one go. Or is speeding always more dangerous than driving with bald tyres, or driving to the speed limit in icy conditions?

I know G, don't know his mate (if he even existed, or whether the whole thread was a spectacularly hypothetical troll), but what the thread was about wasn't the fact that his mate had been done, more did the penalty fit the crime. This was discussed in the light of a well-known case. Just because most people never seemed to grasp that basic premise doesn't mean he, TS, I or anyone else is bleating; more, we are debating whether the law is just. FWIW, the law is very geared to catching 'easy' targets, whilst the more dangerous antics (such as overtaking on double whites - TJ) go missed because there are less officers out there to catch such people. People get caught for speeding and punished because they [u]may[/u] cause an accident. People get punished for D&D because they [u]may[/u] cause an accident. By and large, people only seem to get punished for dangerous / careless driving [u]after[/u] causing the accident. To me at least, it seems pretty clear where the problem lies...

shoefiti - Member
Do you drive TJ? i don't suppose you have gone over the speed limit - Ever? have you ay? be honest!

Actually he has fessed up to speeding and dangerous driving not to mention deciding when the law should apply to him and when not further up this thread to be fair.

shoefit - as said many times on this thread and others - Until the last couple of years I rode fastish motorbikes and was a serious speeder - jail time speeding at times - certainly instant ban.

However I don't speed in 30s and 40s and if / when caught I DON'T BLEAT ABOUT IT. That is the key. Break the law accept the punishment.

edit :The law always applies to me. If I chose to break it and get caught I would and hve accepted the punishment. there is a time and a place for speeding 🙂

TJ, if it were that simple would we really need to have so many cases go to court. You sped, we caught you, here's your punishment. Why do we need a judge for that? Because life isn't black and white.

In G's example I'd rather see a hefty fine and a small ban - at his mate's expense - than another person on the dole claiming benefits at MY expense. He doesn't sound like a dangerous driver. He speeds - as do many of us - and he got caught once too often. Bad luck. Fine him yes, ban him yes, but not at the expense of his livelihood. Unless there are other factors not mentioned by G I think his mate has cause for appeal against the punishment (NOT the conviction).

I've not read all the posts on this thread but even for STW most are a *touch* unsympathetic to say the least.

Smee - Member

Zokes - Correct. I am exactly the type of person to teach that stuff. That's why I do it.

So someone who blasts their horn at a cyclist who has the audacity to be on the same road as them, then is still angry enough to rant on here about it later on is an ideal person to teach people how to be careful drivers? Your logic is as strange as you are deluded. Let me know where you live, that way I don't have to risk an accident caused by you or one of your unfortunate students.

Zokes - your observation skills are clearly useless.

zokes - I am not saying in the Ryhl case the punishment was correct. It however is possible to have an accident where people die without committing and offence.

G - the point you simply do not seem able to see is that because in one case the driver seems to have got away lightly this has no bearing on your mates case. None. Zero. Zip.

You mate got the punishment for the crime. Maybe the Rhyl driver didn't. so what. Your mate still got the correct punishment for the crime as laid down in the law. The Rhyl case has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Oh Bugger - I got sucked back into to it again.

Smee - Member

Zokes - your observation skills are clearly useless.

Observation - so your a driving instructor? What's wrong with a proper job? 😛

- the point you simply do not seem able to see is that because in one case the driver seems to have got away lightly this has no bearing on your mates case. None. Zero. Zip.

Yes it does, punishment especially for linked areas of crime. Clearly sentences must be proprotionate, in fact the whole of UK law is based on precedents, and it is the norm to consider prior case law before deciding how to sentence. I actually have been amazed throughout this thread how someone of your obvious intellect cannot see that it is absolutely crucial that there is a sense of proportion in punishment. In my mates case he got very close to the maximum that the type of offence will normally get. In the Rhyl case the guy got less than the normal minimum, which would be 3 points per tyre and £60 each (he got 6 points and £180 fine in total), the Magistrates could have awarded much more had they chosen to. The Police could have charged him with other offences had they chosen to. That is not proportionate. Thats my point

You mate got the punishment for the crime. Maybe the Rhyl driver didn't. so what. Your mate still got the correct punishment for the crime as laid down in the law. The Rhyl case has no bearing on it whatsoever.

I never said the Rhyl case had any direct bearing on my mates case. What I said is that the sentencing is not proportionate. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, are you saying Rhyl was reasonable? Because if so my mates circumstances clearly aren't given a much heavier sentencing regime being applied. Conversely if you think Rhyl was excessively lenient, then clearly its not therefore proportionate to what happened to my mate. Either way you cannot be correct in what you are saying. Troll or otherwise I honestly believe that.

G

Having given this consideration surely there is some precedent based on social class and past behaviours here? Take a habitual road and civil offender (Acorn group 5 for example) surely these individuals should have greater punishment than say (acorn group 1,2 or 3)comparable individuals with unblemished records.

In stead of a factory style punishment where all are treated equal, repeat offenders (Chavs) should be given tougher sentences? Only seems right.

discuss
TS

Smee - Member

Zokes - your observation skills are clearly useless.

Clearly. Obviously you didn't post [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/beardy-cyclist ]this rant[/url] about how you tried your best to run a cyclist off the road. Did you have a pupil with you at the time? Even better was when you turned up [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/driving-home-from-a-ride ]a couple of weeks later being holier-than-thou[/url] about how people should be calm when driving.

You're blinder than a blind man wearing a blindfold in a blacked out room.

G - what you fail to understand is that what happens in one case has zero bearing on another case [i]of a different crime. [/i] Precedent and proportionality is irrelevant across different crimes.

Your mate got the correct sentence. Maybe the Rhyl driver did not. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You need to try to understand a bit more about the law. I simply disagree with your analysis as do most others on this thread.

your understanding of how the law works is wrong, your analysis of the case is wrong and you appear unable to listen to further argument.

Last post from me

Started reading the first couple of pages and gave up.
Yes the guy did speed and deserved some sort of punishment but in these days where speed cameras are so common is 4 minor speeding offences in 3 years worthy of a ban?
12 points on your license got you a ban in the old days when speed cameras on the roadside didn't exist.

I can't believe all those who actually do drive preaching about speeding on here have never broken the speed limit!

I was in court once when a drunk driver who demolished a roundabout and admitted he was about to go on the motorway got away with just a fine and no ban because he would lose his job!

Life is not fair, one person will get let off the next will get punished.

Thats Britain for ya!

You need to try to understand a bit more about the law.

I think the main argument is that the law is unjust. I concede that arguing on here isn't going to change anything, but can't see how that differs from 99% of the other pointless diatribe vented on this forum

TJ : I understand the law well enough having studied it at both a level and degree level, thanks very much. It is common practice for simialr areas of law to be considered so much so that of occasion settlements in different legal systems, are taken as precedent. It is not uncommon for example for American case law to be taken into account in the UK.

So once more for the record, I am not saying that my mate was innocent and shouldn't have been punished. Quite the opposite in fact, what I am saying however, is that for it to be seen as fair, just and equitable it has to be proportionate across the board. Clearly his sentence when ALL circunstances are taken into account is on the harsh side, clearly when very few of either the facts or circumstances were taken into account the Rhyl drivers setnence wasn't harsh even then. My question is therefore how can that be right? And that I think is where I came in.

IT has nothing to do whatsoever with him getting done, me or him bleating, just simply a strong sense of injustice, which I fully accept would be equally resolved by mate putting up with what he got, and all the others getting much harsher sentences, as it would his sentence being reduced to make it proportionate.

Justice has to be seen to be fair, and I put it to you that the things I have raised above clearly are not only not seen to be, but simply are not just.

Woot?

thread closed

please? its boring now.

But have we reached a consensus?

Do we need to?

I think so - agreed we've done this to death but is it finally agreed that

(a) The punishment does not fit the crime
(b) That fines etc be handed out by social class and 'previous' convictions?
(c) Smee and Zokes should never meet - I suspect some wierd space time continium thing might occur

TS

Zokes - you just don't get it do you?

I was pissed off at the cyclist because he was being a cock.

I was pissed off at folk driving back from trail centres and driving like cocks.

Moral of the story is dont be a cock on the roads.

[img] [/img]

[img] ?t=1244576353[/img]

[img] [/img]

Wooooooosh

TandemJeremy - Member

Wooooooosh

Last post from me

Really? You're giving into G too easily.....

Oops

but between being shook up and the bollocking I got I learnt more and took more notice than any 3 points and fine would have taught me.

Case no 2 actually wasn't really my fault

would be equally resolved by ... his sentence being reduced to make it proportionate.

Smee - member

Zokes - you just don't get it do you?

I was pissed off at the cyclist because he was being a cock.

I was pissed off at folk driving back from trail centres and driving like cocks.

Moral of the story is dont be a cock on the roads.

Well, as you can't even manage not to be a cock on here, what hope is there of you not being one in real life, let alone at the wheel of a car. I tend to find arrogant, sanctimonious little monkeys the worst drivers of all. Totally oblivious of their own faults and blame everyone else for their poor judgement. Regardless of how much of a 'cock' the cyclist was being, he was quite within his rights to cycle there, and you were not within yours to force him out of the way. Whilst your viewpoint is valid about driving on adrenaline, i'd rather come across someone focussed driving on adrenaline, rather than someone half asleep. Why don't you start a thread on here demanding that we don't drive whilst we're tired? Perhaps you could do it in that condescending tone you use so well and we all admire you for, or is it past your bedtime?

/and breathe

No need for the personal insults. For that I have reported your post. People have been banned for less...

[img] [/img]

LOL

LOL @ zokes the cyber bully

Smee - I think you will find many folk agree with Zokes.

If you can't take it dont dish it out.

[img] [/img]

Imagine if smee was reported every time he was offensive! 😆

The admin would be overwhelmed. 😉

[img] [/img]

Rich - I think you'd find that the number would be very small and only ever when I had been subjected to abuse first, but don't let reality get in the way of anything.

but don't let reality get in the way of anything.

Not that you'd ever do that Smee, eh?

[img] [/img]

Smee - several times you have been abusive without being abused first. I have been tempted to report you for your behaviour and general nastyness

TJ - show me where.

Look if you lot want to make up your own thread, thats fine, but not on mine please.

Now then, about my mate........ 🙄

Nar, letting Smee demonstrate that he thinks he is a superior human being to the rest of us is far more amusing though....

I understood that he was....

🙄

Haven't read all of this, but he would have a very good chance on appeal I would think, unless they've become more hard line recently. Did the photo show he was driving? If he is father, sole bread winner etc, an appeal has to be worth a try. Either that or employ a driver/assistant?

Took a brief with him, gave it the full monty in court, and this is waht he got. An appeal is a) expensive, b) Very unlikely to succeed, and c) unlikely to come to court prior to the original sentnce being completed, so no real point frankly.

Regarding employing someone, he is a small one man self employed fella, scrapes a living, but thats about it. Simply put he can't afford it. Currently driving a 10 year old motor sort of thing.

Apparently on the day in question they were handing out 6 month bans like confetti. court officials etc all displaying surprise at the severity.

From the local paper today:

Bannister, who qualified as an advanced police driver a month before the accident, was driving on the M4 near Swansea when his BMW 5 series spun out of control.
He received minor injuries when the car flew through the air on the night of January 13, 2008, after hitting water at 113mph.
The crown court heard that Bannister was stood down from an emergency call shortly before joining the motorway, but continued to drive at high speeds, reaching more than 120mph.

The guy was given a prison sentence of 5 months, served 20 days before being bailed and the sentence has now been quashed because it may affect whether he can go back to work as a traffic policeman.

Taking into account that he has served time, he has had a nominal fine of £50.

I think that's a better comparison than the Rhyl cyclists, G.

Should he be tazared G?

It however is possible to have an accident where people die without committing and offence.

Indeed it is. I know 2 people who have killed someone through no fault of their own.

Its also possible to die on the roads due to anothers negligence or incompetence without anyone giving a shit apparently, so whats your point caller??

IdleJon - Member

From the local paper today:

Bannister, who qualified as an advanced police driver a month before the accident, was driving on the M4 near Swansea when his BMW 5 series spun out of control.
He received minor injuries when the car flew through the air on the night of January 13, 2008, after hitting water at 113mph.
The crown court heard that Bannister was stood down from an emergency call shortly before joining the motorway, but continued to drive at high speeds, reaching more than 120mph.

The guy was given a prison sentence of 5 months, served 20 days before being bailed and the sentence has now been quashed because it may affect whether he can go back to work as a traffic policeman.

Taking into account that he has served time, he has had a nominal fine of £50.

I think that's a better comparison than the Rhyl cyclists, G.

Or how about [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm ]THIS[/url] for the other side of the coin....

Re "the other side of the coin" above

Love the quote from the speeding plod as to why he was doing 130 on a public road:

In a statement read out in court, he said: "I was advised to familiarise myself with vehicles, so when there was a need to respond at speed you were aware of its performance."

Essentially practising, do hope that the Neurosurgeon who will be operating on my wife in a couple of weeks won't be just "familiarising himself with the spinal chord".

There are places he can go to drive quickly away from the public - what an absolute knob.

won't be just "familiarising himself

Yeah, but there must have been a point when he was surely? Bet he didn't come out of the womb with an inate ability?

The feds like everyone else do have to train and practice their skills, it is normal though for this to be authorised in advance with proper risk assessments etc in place. Sounds a lot to me like this guy was playing and got caught, otherwise it should have been easily sorted prior to any court proceedings.

Since speeding fines against ambulance drivers have been axed the simple solution is to buy an ambulance and drive everywhere with the blues and twos going - simples.....

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/8094910.stm ]What about this fella then?[/url]

Can't see the problem - he was on the snow not on the road at the time, so how is it a Road Traffic offence?