CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 23 min 17 sec ago

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 10:10pm
What's "Joint Enterprise Rules"? When do they apply? When not? Are these the rules wherein at a murder scene when more than one person is in attendance and no murderer identified,all persons can and are charged with murder?...As in,5 youths going down for a stabbing wherein no one will say who killed X? Or police cannot identify said perpetrator?

Applicable in this case?

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 9:44pm
Not impressed with the priority given to this investigation. The postal 172 notices (with a 28 day limit to respond) to a keeper to identify a driver are appropriate for volume offences like speed cameras. Not for a hit and run with serious injuries.

The 28 days limit only applies to a 172 request by post. A verbal request face to face requires an immediate answer. Given the seriousness of this crime I would have thought a better course of action would be tel contact with the lease company to establish who was actually keeping the vehicle. In this case it would seem it was a garage which gave it to the suspect as a courtesy car. Thereafter police attend at the garage and speak to the appropriate person and make a verbal requirement under S172 for the identity of the driver. Result - user of the car identified in a day or two not a month or three. Get a statement from the garage employee then move the enquiry along.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 8:41pm
I've just watched more of the videos. I have to say I think the police investigation was a total mess. All that business of 'they have x weeks to respond' was ridiculous. The cyclist was the victim of a hit and run that could have killed him. It ought to have been treated like attempted murder. If anyone had done the same with a gun rather than a car, or anyone had stolen something valuable from someone important, the police would have found out who they were in about ten seconds flat.

As it was, they went about it as if someone had had their wing mirror broken whilst parked. It's hardly surprising the CPS felt there was not much they could do- evidence not collected, suspects not contacted until months afterwards when they could bleat 'I can't remember which of us was driving' (not that that is any defence in this case if you listen to the other evidence). You can't weave without weft.

If the police had wanted (for some reason) the suspects to get off, they couldn't have done a more thorough job of making sure they would. I've often defended the police, my own uncle was a copper and he was a good man, but this time there just isn't anything to defend- not one shred.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 8:04pm
Paulatic wrote:Not sure what you are trying to say there.
If you mean if they are, and I've no idea as Reginald hasn't said so AFAIK, a mixed race and it has no relevance to us then you are quite right.
If it's the case that the information could have been used for further identification as to determining which of the two were driving then I believe it is relevant to us. Further evidence of the weekness of the CPS.
The part of this that is potentially significant is the two people in the car might look different enough to be distinguished, perhaps by CCTV. It doesn't matter at all that they are a mixed race couple.

Re: Cycling opportunity Keswick -Kendal

7 February 2016 - 7:30pm
Bicycler wrote:https://twitter.com/CumbriaCC/status/695278724254605312
can confirm pedestrians and cyclists can use the temporary road when it opens.

Thanks for that. We'll be there at Easter if not before so that's very useful.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 7:29pm
Mark R wrote:Unbelievable

The investigating officer used the quality of RS's video as a rationale for not collecting up the other cctv footage from the area.

She failed to notice that the video didn't identify the driver. Seems pretty negligant to me

On the little I know so far, I said before that the fundamental fault seems to me to lie with the police investigation. The cyclist was lucky not to be killed in this hit-and-run. It should have been investigated from the start as a potential attempted murder.
If it really is the case as you say, it is outrageous that cyclists get told on the one hand their videos aren't good enough for an investigation, and on the other they find they are so 'good' that essential other collaborative evidence doesn't get collected.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 7:24pm
Mark R wrote:Flinders wrote:Just watched the video again; it's clear from watching the other vehicles etc. that the car accelerates into the cyclist.
That's odd.
The cyclist was clearly visible, and the car stayed well behind it for some time (i.e., it's not like a car between pulled out to overtake and the driver of the car behind only saw the bike at the last moment.
I still think there is something odd about this. Even if the driver decided to answer the phone, or text someone, I can still only see why it would maintain speed, not why it would accelerate.


Have you watched the update video? He explains why he believes this was a deliberate attack in a very articulate way.

I only watched part of the new one, it being rather long, and haven't seen any of the four promised, so thanks for that, I will watch them all the way through when I have time.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 7:06pm
York Hill is a monster.WAY beyond me. Hubby has done it (once) with the Catfords and says its at the limit of his ability. Kent/Surrey can surprise you with their hills.

Jan

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 6:38pm
beardy wrote:pwa wrote:TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.

You would "punish" children for their parents sake then?
£13 a week isnt enough to make me condone abortion and I would anyway rather have a child raised in poverty than terminated and not raised at all. That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

Drinking is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Obesity is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Truancy is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Antisocial behaviour is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Immigration is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Housing is a problem. Cut their benefits

One could imagine the only real problem is poor people. What was IDS's solution for poor people?
Oh yes, Cut their benefits.

Steady on. I say I think A and B, so you jump to the conclusion that I also think C, D and E.

I think that in a world of finite resources and problems created by our effluent it is irresponsible of us to multiply too fast. I think having a big family is a bad idea. If we do not exercise self control in this area the old natural solutions of war and famine will do the job for us. I'd like to avoid that. Or I could just stick my head in the sand and pretend there is no problem.

Anything our government does to encourage having more than two or three children should be thought about very carefully. And it's no use saying that is making children poorer, because having large families already does that. If you don't like the emphasis on benefits, come up with a better way.

I don't condone abortion as a way of controlling family size. Contraception works well for most of us.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 6:08pm
It's a pity that the Joint Enterprise rules cannot be used - or could they?

Re: Downslink works: Bramber to Shoreham-by-Sea

7 February 2016 - 4:04pm
I received the following from the WSP project designer on Friday:
Works have now been completed up to the cement works, where the path turns 90 degrees east. Due to access issues, the remaining section will not be surfaced until the summer months. (That is, the section that runs alongside the river on the north-west side of the cement works site and on up to the South Downs Way bridge will remain as is for a while longer.)
Despite the above, the Footpath (sic) Closed signs and barriers were in place today but the route is rideable, albeit rather soft (as in, feels like a puncture ) in the middle section which runs close to the A283.

Re: Edburton Road, Henfield closed for 5 days from 15 Feb. 2

7 February 2016 - 3:59pm
MikeF wrote:As for Rocky Lane - your favourite - I walked along some of it a few months ago whilst waiting for my wife at the nearby clinic. A very wide black top path, 3 metres width estimated, for pedestrians and cyclists has been constructed on the new A272 past the new housing estate, no doubt paid for by the developers. WSCC latest attempt at cycling infrastructure. At the Bolnore end, rather than the normal WSCC favourite Cyclists Dismount, there is Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway. The only problem it's against the flow of traffic. doh!
Don't I know it! Nowadays best avoided.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 3:49pm
reohn2 wrote:Child benefit in the UK was introduced to repopulate a country ravaged by the toll of war, but now it's not needed so should IMHO be phased out over a period,and population growth discouraged,how we do that is a matter for debate and no mean task in itself.
But one thing's for sure we simply can't go on as we are doing in the hope that our technology will somehow pull us out of the mire,it won't based on simply mathamatics.
War yet again looms,how catastrophic it could be this time is anyone's guess but it has the potential of being almost total.Spot on, IMHO: just a matter of time

Re: The Poplar High St collision

7 February 2016 - 12:58pm
If I've got this right, the cyclist wasn't in a cycle lane per se, but one of those blue marked junction priority strips that appear at the junctions on cycle superhighways. I had never come across a cycle superhighway before and so was unfamiliar with the ins and outs of one. It seems to me that the blue priority marking would be nigh on impossible for the driver to see until already committed to turning and that as things stand, prior knowledge of the road and the priorities given to cyclists would be required for the 'scheme' to be safe.

I agree that the cyclist had priority and certainly that the driver should have been a lot more aware of the cyclist and that he/she should have made the manoeuvre with more care and trepidation but I've watched the video a few times and the cyclist slows down from 12mph as he approaches the junction before the car is visible, to 8mph as the car becomes visible - the cyclist does appear to be slowing down because of the junction (and presumably the hazards thereof) but still manages to hit the car at its rear end. I keep asking myself if in those circumstances, would I have been able to avoid hitting the car and dropping the bike. To me, the resultant collision just doesn't look undoubtedly inevitable.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 12:39pm
beardy wrote:pwa wrote:TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.

You would "punish" children for their parents sake then?
£13 a week isnt enough to make me condone abortion and I would anyway rather have a child raised in poverty than terminated and not raised at all. That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

Drinking is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Obesity is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Truancy is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Antisocial behaviour is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Immigration is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Housing is a problem. Cut their benefits

One could imagine the only real problem is poor people. What was IDS's solution for poor people?
Oh yes, Cut their benefits.

Agreed,with reservations.
Some(dispassionate) thoughts
Responsibility is the main one,if we don't curb population growth,the planet will do it for us,if war doesn't.
We are already seeing mutant forms of infection resistant to antibiotics,which while some don't kill they severely disable individuals thereby,in the western world at least,need more resources for such people to have a quality of life.
That aside we can only feed so many people otherwise the whole ecosystem teeters on the brink of crashing and I wouldn't want to be around when it does,there'll be a remnant of humanity to begin the cycle again and the planet will restore itself,but it'll take time.
Consumerism is based on never ending growth both in population and resources,which is a nonsense as even a blindman can see it's not possible,energy is needed and will cost more and become evermore scarce as time passes.
After WW2 we could've been forgiven for thinking that there were an endless supply of everything,but who would've thought the population increase would've been so large and in such a short time.
Child benefit in the UK was introduced to repopulate a country ravaged by the toll of war, but now it's not needed so should IMHO be phased out over a period,and population growth discouraged,how we do that is a matter for debate and no mean task in itself.
But one thing's for sure we simply can't go on as we are doing in the hope that our technology will somehow pull us out of the mire,it won't based on simply mathamatics.
War yet again looms,how catastrophic it could be this time is anyone's guess but it has the potential of being almost total.

Re: 2016 ride plans

7 February 2016 - 11:47am
This year is good one, I am doing a 5 day ride down the north coast of Cornwall, September is Lon Las Cymru out and back plus as much bike packing over nighters as I can fit in.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 11:40am
beardy wrote:That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

This is very true but that only works when you add in the natural controls of disease and famine( a bit harsh ). It works happily for other species and did for us too..... until we were able to control most childhood illnesses and conquer many bacterial infections. After that it is up to us to self regulate to keep a handle on the population required to sustain the older generation etc. As you say to propogate is our main function and therefore after parenting is completed the parents can die as their purpose has been served...... but we don't want that. So should we not forecast required population for sustainability then the birth to death ratio would be known and we could have people submit a request to have a child which would be granted on the next available death of a person( in the forecast ratio required ). It would be a queued system and would give us a good chance of kepping population from exploding as it seems to be in england( net plus migration not helping either, but balanced exiting equals entering Ok ).

It's pretty complicated but perhaps nature sadly had it right?. Not much fun if you actually enjoy being alive and the advantages/benefits of being a human, that so many seem to waste...... but again thats missing the point that we are just here to eat,sleep, procreate a few times and die.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

7 February 2016 - 11:28am
He also makes no mention of whether the vehicle was ever located, inspected, whether it had damage or if it had had any repairs. I can't believe how long it took to locate the driver, if he had been killed, I'd hope that they would find out who should have been driving it the same day. It seems they treated it like someone accidentally crashing into a parked car and driving off, rather than treating it as an attempted murder.

I still think if both drivers admit that they drive without due care and attention that they may have nearly killed someone without noticing they had, they should both be banned for driving without due care and attention. Then there's no need to prove who was driving.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 10:53am
pwa wrote:TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.

You would "punish" children for their parents sake then?
£13 a week isnt enough to make me condone abortion and I would anyway rather have a child raised in poverty than terminated and not raised at all. That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

Drinking is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Obesity is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Truancy is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Antisocial behaviour is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Immigration is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Housing is a problem. Cut their benefits

One could imagine the only real problem is poor people. What was IDS's solution for poor people?
Oh yes, Cut their benefits.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

7 February 2016 - 10:45am
There are sadly fairly frequent collisions on the A85 between Connel and Oban. There is a back road ( a cycle route incidentally) from Connel to Oban. Once police have been alerted one of their early moves is to close this back road to all motor traffic. Otherwise being single track it very quickly becomes a very long car park. At least it leaves it free for bikes and emergency vehicles. Generally it does not carry too much traffic so is reasonable to cycle on. Mind you anything would be better than the A85.

About

CTC

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions