Magistrates question value of prosecuting "drunk" cyclist

exilegareth wrote:

Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.

 

Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.

Rather than have a cheap pop at the CPS you should consider that offences of this nature don't need CPS approval so the Magistrate is suggesting that the officers get a prosecutor's advice before taking the matter to trial.

jonathanfmcgarry wrote:

exilegareth wrote:

Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.

 

Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.

Rather than have a cheap pop at the CPS you should consider that offences of this nature don't need CPS approval so the Magistrate is suggesting that the officers get a prosecutor's advice before taking the matter to trial.

Here's the quote from the original article that inspired the snark - "The case was adjourned until April 3, but not before chairman of the bench Bill Hush urged prosecutor Stacie Cossey to check in the meantime that the CPS and police wanted to continue with it."

Stacie Cossey is a solicitor employed by the CPS - it took me thirty seconds with Google to check that. So you've tried to defend the CPS from my snarking and in the process revealed that you either hadn't  read the original article or checked the facts. I believe the youth of today refer to this as self-owning - nice work on your part, but possibly not something you'll be proud of.

exilegareth]</p>

<p>[quote=jonathanfmcgarry wrote:

exilegareth wrote:

Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.

 

Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.

Rather than have a cheap pop at the CPS you should consider that offences of this nature don't need CPS approval so the Magistrate is suggesting that the officers get a prosecutor's advice before taking the matter to trial.

Here's the quote from the original article that inspired the snark - "The case was adjourned until April 3, but not before chairman of the bench Bill Hush urged prosecutor Stacie Cossey to check in the meantime that the CPS and police wanted to continue with it."

Stacie Cossey is a solicitor employed by the CPS - it took me thirty seconds with Google to check that. So you've tried to defend the CPS from my snarking and in the process revealed that you either hadn't  read the original article or checked the facts. I believe the youth of today refer to this as self-owning - nice work on your part, but possibly not something you'll be proud of

The Prosecutor would probably have only seen the case for the first time once at court and with another 20 plus cases to do in the same list would have had no time to discuss it with the  officers hence the need for an adjournment but you may not have appreciated that.

exilegareth wrote:

Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.

 

Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.

"before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to"

Maybe he didn't know about that charge existed, but he certainly should have been aware of Highway Code Rule 68 which states that You MUST NOT ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.

and I cannot find anything in the Highway Code permitting cyclists to move in the opposite direction of the traffic flow in a one-way street

ClubSmed wrote:

exilegareth wrote:

Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.

 

Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.

 

"before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to"

Maybe he didn't know about that charge existed, but he certainly should have been aware of Highway Code Rule 68 which states that You MUST NOT ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.

and I cannot find anything in the Highway Code permitting cyclists to move in the opposite direction of the traffic flow in a one-way street

The Highway Code doesn't allow it at all.

There are schemes that do allow it, though:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/getting-around/cycling-and-walking/two-way-cycling-one-way-streets

Mybike wrote:

A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.

A: Where does it say this?

B: Even when I'm not riding it?

Mybike wrote:

A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.

There's some very important differences between a car and a bike.

• A bike takes up far less space on the road, so most one-way roads would have plenty of room to allow a cyclist to travel the wrong way safely whereas a car going the wrong way would obstruct the road
• A cyclist has far less kinetic energy than a car due to the massive weight difference. This means that when a cyclist hits someone/something there is far less chance of serious injury/death than when a car does the same
• Cycling requires balance skills which places some kind of limit on how drunk a cyclist can be before not being able to make any progress (i.e. they wobble and fall off) whereas a drunk motorist is only limited by whether they can find their keys and insert them into the door/ignition
• Cycling whilst drunk will tend to reduce your speed (e.g. more wobbling) whereas drunk motorists tend to either speed or fastidiously drive at exactly the speed limit (if they're not overly drunk).
• Drunk motorists kill/maim loads of people whereas drunk cyclists mainly fall off and have minor injuries (citation required)
• Speed limits are actually motorised speed limits and do not apply to cyclists/skateboarders/skaters/pedestrians
• Bikes don't cause/get stuck in traffic jams
• Cyclists have a right to use public roads whereas motorists are merely licensed to use them

Mybike wrote:

A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.

Obvious troll is obvious.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Mybike wrote:

A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.

 

Obvious troll is obvious.

No I'm not a troll. But. In my country of Canada. And province of Ontario. A cyclists has to follow the same rules as a car driver. Stop at stop sings red light etc. He has to stay near the shoulder. Just as a slow moving vehicle. He does not need to ride in the bike lane but you can't ride a bike drunk. Just as you can walk down the street drunk in Ontario Canada. It in the drivers hand book
So sorry not a troll

Mybike wrote:

A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.

Should rules for motoring be equally applied to those that pose thousands of times less harm? How many people have cyclists killed whilst being drunk in the last 5 years for instance? Motorists it's over a thousand, let's go back further, how many dead due to a drunk cyclist over the last 20 years, because in that time over the limit motorists have killed over 5000 people, never mind the derious injuries which run into the multiple tens of thousands.

How many people have been killed/SI by those on bikes by cycling the 'wrong' way down x street?

We have this ridiculous situation were the least dangerous 'common' mode of travel on the roads is actually being held to the same/similar level of rules as that which cause the vast majority of the deaths and SI by far - cyclist are attributed to 0.03% of all road fatalities over the last 7 years ... 50% LESS than pedestrians when in collision with people on bikes, it's even worse re peds when you include them causing deaths of others and theselves through their actions! How about walking the wrong way on a road, should that be a 'crime' too given the supposed dangers?

A bicycle. Doesn't have to follow same rules of road as car. Fixed that for you. We could play the equality game if you like, but then you'll have to accept that car drivers 'should' wear helmets on the basis that car accidents are the largest single cause of head injuries.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

What about the psychological damage to whoever runs him over? If you're drunk, stay off the roads regardless of vehicle.

Who said he was drunk. The 3 police officers were of the opinion he was drunk but that was not proven.

At last a Magistrate who thinks that public money could be better spent.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

What about the psychological damage to whoever runs him over? If you're drunk, stay off the roads regardless of vehicle.

But where's the evidence that the chap being 'drunk' (if he actually was) would make him more run-over-able?

I don't see why he wasn't just charged with whatever was the relevant offence for cycling the wrong way down the one-way road.  If anything could be said to be making him being run over more likely, it was that.  Not sure why they had to bring the side-issue of intoxication into it.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

What about the psychological damage to whoever runs him over? If you're drunk, stay off the roads regardless of vehicle.

True. I once had to stop the car for a load of black bin bags blocking the road (it was dark and bin day). I got out to move them, then realised it was a bloke in a long black coat, who had passed out in the road. Managed to rouse him, bottle of vodka fell out his pocket as he got up, then helped him get home safely.

He was a a smoker too. Car stank for days afterwards.