Angry people in local newspapers: jewellers "forced" to close...because of cycle lane; Alaphilippe back training (but only on Tacx™ rollers); Jumbo-Visma pro faceplants while passing fan a bottle; Everesting every day for a week? + more on the live blog

OldRidgeback wrote:

If only people didn't buy bicycles, they'd have more money for jewellry.

Ironically my jewel-encrusted bicycle business of 42 years just went under as people would rather wear them than have them adorning a bicycle. Madness.

Except that:

1. We know we need to reduce car trips and miles, and increasing road capacity does the opposite by adding to traffic volumes and emissions
2. It is hard to imagine how "free-flowing slip roads" can be better for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders
3. Trees are being cut down at RHS Wisley to make way for more f'ing cars

This is govt hypocrisy, as they talk about decarbonising transport and reducing car trips, but do the opposite. We have no time left.

So in fact you can say fairer than that. It's another National Highways disaster.

Sorry, my last sentence was sarcasm. I can't see that free-flowing slip roads is compatible with better routes for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

I should have put 'trebles all round' then it would have been more obvious.

Mad innit

Road.cc - you did an article on Essex Police earlier in the year. Perhaps you can revisit this and find out about this CPS claim and compare Essex approach with other forces eg Inspector Kevin's

I resent this! Our Brave Lancashire Boys are much more dismissive of any 'cyclist safety' politically correct nonsense than Essex. I recall that Essex was the force who rejected a video-verified close-passing complaint because 'the cyclist hadn't swerved or braked'- that's crass enough, and displays a complete inability to comprehend the experience of being passed 20 cms away at 50 mph by an Audi Psycho-Driver who is way into the distance before you've had time to swerve or brake. However, Lancashire is way ahead because they wouldn't have even considered responding to the complaint. This is Audi Q2 JIB 1555 teaching me a lesson

Thought that was quite hilarious myself, being called out on their bs that it was all the fault of the CPS (not that I believed that anyway). Then of course they went silent again.

My understanding is that while Mark's comment is technically accurate, it also doesn't give the full picture. Yes the decision to issue a FPN is carried out by the police officer involved and does not go through the CPS. However, a FPN is meant to be an equal alternative to prosecution through the courts, with the same burdens of evidential standards etc.

Therefore, police forces should only be issuing FPNs in the same circumstances in which the CPS would be willing to take the case to court, and that requires a reasonable prospect of conviction. So although the CPS isn't directly involved in the decision to issue an FPN, the police officer making that decision would nonetheless have to have regards to the CPS's guidance and the prospect of a conviction in court. If the CPS wouldn't be willing to take on a case for whatever reason, then the police officer shouldn't be issuing an FPN.

That said, the NMotD series does appear to suggest that forces vary widely in their approach to issuing FPNs, which suggests police forces do take different attitudes, regardless of what the CPS does (or doesn't) advise. 

The problem is Essex aren't even trying, there are multiple examples of quite shocking close passed that they have deemed only warrant a warning letter nothing else.

This was my latest one:
https://youtu.be/F_7Dw--4p9k

they have deemed only warrant a warning letter nothing else

The next stage of the trick is that they make sure they don't 'notice' previous warning letters, so that the warnings only count in the unlikely event that the same driver offends against the same cyclist more than once. When it's a bus, the police and the bus company are quite possibly colluding in declaring 'it was a different driver- case closed'.

There are 2 issues, one with the claim that the advice had changed with no explanation and the other with the feed back. I got that the driver was going to receive a letter for "the driver falling below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver" which is exactly the same wording as the CPS for careless driving.

Your last para illustrates the problem and Essex have gone backwards in their standards with no explanation.

And just to add to everything being said here, the twitter thread this all come up on was from me highlighting an NFA from Essex police on a vehicle displaying two different licence plates.

Classic Lancs Police !

forces vary widely in their approach to issuing FPNs, which suggests police forces do take different attitudes, regardless of what the CPS does (or doesn't) advise

If you have Bad Cops, you really are on your own and we're certainly on our own on Lancashire's roads. They're quite prepared to wait until you're killed and then issue the super-insincere 'our thoughts are with the deceased's family and friends'. There are no fines, FPNs, licence points, court cases up here- there is no generally no response to reports and in the unlikely event that they agree to take action, the letter is so hedged about with dodges that it's quite compatible with later deciding to do nothing at all. They won't tell you what action they took, which means that it was only a warning letter or the joke online driving course. How much worse can it be than this close-pass below while you're still alive? Yet, Lancashire Constabulary simply refuses to even respond to requests about the actual action taken.

PS I'm not just sitting here engaging in futile moaning on road.cc, which is just a load of us generally agreeing that close-passing and vehicles crashing through red lights are not good. I am writing to my MP currently and have got to email 6 of about 10 in which I tediously provide no end of detail, videos, stills, letters about how Lancashire Constabulary is massively failing to protect cyclists, or enforce VED payments or MOT certificates. I doubt he will be able to do anything because it's a massive case, and then I'm obliged to put it all on YouTube.

brooksby wrote:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18542050/hollyoaks-star-driving-ban-audi-d...

Quote:

Ayers, of Woolton in Liverpool, said her insurance was withdrawn without her knowledge after she failed to spot an email asking for a copy of her driving licence.

She was stopped on September 21 last year whilst driving her black S Line model (Audi A6) through Sefton village.

Ayres admitted driving without insurance and was fined £120 with £144 in costs and victim surcharges.

She was given six points on her license, taking the tally to 12, but was allowed her to keep her driving licence.

Quote:

... the former Miss Liverpool, 28, was spared by magistrates after claiming she can't take her four-year-old daughter on public transport as the youngster has a rare form of autism.

Ayres, a single mum of two, broke down in tears in the dock as she told of the hardships her little girl faces.

to be fair, hardship to others always attracts more empathy for an EH plea. 

"to be fair, hardship to others always attracts more empathy for an EH plea"

If I'm not mistaken, she lives in a relatively urban area, if she is driving her kids any distance to school then it is because she has chosen to send her kids to a school other than the nearest one which is probably walking distance.

I have a lot more sympathy with this 'exceptional hardship' claim than most others we see.  This statement from the magistrate, however, is clearly rubbish - 

Quote:

 “The bar is very high with exceptional hardship,” chairman of the bench Brian Wilson said.

Her hardship claim was based on insisting she needs to drive her daughter to school, part way down the article it turns out 2 out of the 5 days a week she gets transport provided and doesnt drive her.

Plus you dont get banned from driving for just driving without insurance as a rule, unless you've already collected a bundle of points, so that the extra 6pts takes you over the points limit under the totting up procedure.

She already had six points, and this gave her another six.

yes I was just higlighting she had prior driving convictions to be in this state where a ban was the likely outcome for this "simply missing an email" so the exceptional hardship claim should take account of her priors, and the magistrates should have stressed any loss of freedom she was claiming, were down to her own actions & responsibilities for caring for her daughter.

but there you go another 12pointer driver let loose on the roads with driving treated as a right not a privilege, till the next time they get caught

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/speeding-businessman...

"Ben Trigger, 29, from Wigan, was convicted of death by dangerous driving following a trial last month. He had been banned twice previously for drink-driving."

No-one's being allowed to continue robbing because otherwise their kids will go without are they? Or continue dealing drugs because their customers might suffer withdrawal.

I'm not completely unsympathetic to "hardship".  I'm sure most people are living harder lives than me as I'm quite lazy.  However it goes way too far for driving offenses.  Given it's not many who even make it to court I think "otherwise law abiding" / "just the once" is a nonsense even though the courts have to take that as a given.

Most people feel that a) not being able to drive will change your life in lots of ways and b) is thus a major social degradation / cruel and unusual punishment.  There is some truth in (b) due to how car-dependent we are.  (a) is always true to some extent.  These are overstated though.  And isn't forcing a change one of the main points of the sentence part of the legal system?  You're there because your behaviour has caused a societal conflict* / has injured or is endangering others.  You can't go on like before.

You've got children? Yes but they didn't come along *entirely* by accident did they?  Yes, given our society we may have to moderate that very slightly for mothers.  Thankfully we're not like the US or Poland (or even Ireland) on abortion though.

* Ignoring debates about who or what the legal system ultimately serves.