roaduser66:
Carryfast:
Assuming that the cyclist lobby is supporting a cyclist specific change,in the way that road traffic collisions involving cyclists are prosecuted,that is effectively a change in the definition of guilt.Bearing in mind that the Crown doesn’t generally prosecute people who ‘it’ thinks are innocent.In this case the CPS are obviously being asked to over rule police investigations regarding that decision, specifically in the case of cyclist casualties.Which as I said presents an obvious public interest situation if/when the CPS are in disagreement with its own investigative agency that being the police. 
The cycling lobby are proposing no such thing. So your main reason for holding antipathy toward cyclists is because of an argument that nobody’s put forward. You made it up. The CPS aren’t being asked to over rule anything. Stop posting made-up garbage.
I haven’t got any ‘antipathy’ against cyclists.Everything which I’m saying is firstly to reduce the risks which they face on the road and secondly to minimise the chances of an innocent driver being convicted of causing the death or injury of a cyclist.
On that note it seems clear that the CPS certainly are being called on to ‘review’ ( over rule ) the decisions of police investigators, regards the guilt or innocence of drivers in regard to prosecution.In the case of road traffic collisions specifically involving cyclists.
In which case,as I said,how will you deal with the public interest angle if/when such ‘reviewed’ prosecution decisions contradict the original police investigations and if/when the defence obtain that information as part of prosecution disclosure rules.
Carryfast:
On that note it seems clear that the CPS certainly are being called on to ‘review’ ( over rule ) the decisions of police investigators, regards the guilt or innocence of drivers in regard to prosecution.In the case of road traffic collisions specifically involving cyclists.
No they’re not. Where are you getting this rubbish from?
The-Snowman:
Its also official guidance to always wear a helmet and use front and rear lights but you and that other ■■■ BWD seem to think it doesnt matter since its not illegal. Cant have it both ways pal
I have never said they don’t matter. So there is no duplicity since you are making up opinions I don’t hold. This is a lame debating tactic, argue with what I’ve said, not the voices in your head.
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
On that note it seems clear that the CPS certainly are being called on to ‘review’ ( over rule ) the decisions of police investigators, regards the guilt or innocence of drivers in regard to prosecution.In the case of road traffic collisions specifically involving cyclists.
No they’re not. Where are you getting this rubbish from?
Explain the definition of ‘final decision’ here.Assuming that CPS ‘final decision’ disagrees with the conclusions of the original police ‘investigations’ where those ‘investigations’ removed blame from the driver.
bbc.co.uk/news//uk-34604622
In which case are you saying that such ( damaging to the prosecution ) evidence,of disagreement in the prosecution side/case,should be witheld from the defence as part of full disclosure,or not and how would you then sell that as being in the public interest in either case.Having obviously either witheld vital, damaging,prosecution evidence from the defence.Or turned a Queens evidence witness ( police investigator ) into a hostile witness against the prosecution and for the defence.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
On that note it seems clear that the CPS certainly are being called on to ‘review’ ( over rule ) the decisions of police investigators, regards the guilt or innocence of drivers in regard to prosecution.In the case of road traffic collisions specifically involving cyclists.
No they’re not. Where are you getting this rubbish from?
Explain the definition of ‘final decision’ here.Assuming that CPS ‘final decision’ disagrees with the conclusions of the original police ‘investigations’ where those ‘investigations’ removed blame from the driver.
bbc.co.uk/news//uk-34604622
In which case are you saying that such ( damaging to the prosecution ) evidence,of disagreement in the prosecution side/case,should be witheld from the defence as part of full disclosure,or not and how would you then sell that as being in the public interest in either case.Having obviously either witheld vital, damaging,prosecution evidence from the defence.Or turned a Queens evidence witness ( police investigator ) into a hostile witness against the prosecution and for the defence.
Nope. I’m not saying that. The cyclist lobby isn’t saying that. You seem confused, you are up in arms about something that nobody’s said. There will be no “over-ruling” of anything. You don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Carryfast:
On that note it seems obvious that the cycling lobby’s real agenda is a change in that definition of guilt.Along the lines of guilt being determined just on the basis of cyclist vulnerability and the fact that a collision has taken place.
Nobody is saying anything of the kind.
I’m gonna need more Popcorn! 
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
On that note it seems clear that the CPS certainly are being called on to ‘review’ ( over rule ) the decisions of police investigators, regards the guilt or innocence of drivers in regard to prosecution.In the case of road traffic collisions specifically involving cyclists.
No they’re not. Where are you getting this rubbish from?
Explain the definition of ‘final decision’ here.Assuming that CPS ‘final decision’ disagrees with the conclusions of the original police ‘investigations’ where those ‘investigations’ removed blame from the driver.
bbc.co.uk/news//uk-34604622
In which case are you saying that such ( damaging to the prosecution ) evidence,of disagreement in the prosecution side/case,should be witheld from the defence as part of full disclosure,or not and how would you then sell that as being in the public interest in either case.Having obviously either witheld vital, damaging,prosecution evidence from the defence.Or turned a Queens evidence witness ( police investigator ) into a hostile witness against the prosecution and for the defence.
Nope. I’m not saying that. The cyclist lobby isn’t saying that. You seem confused, you are up in arms about something that nobody’s said. There will be no “over-ruling” of anything. You don’t understand what you’re talking about.
‘Final decision’ obviously means over rule in the case of the CPS deciding to prosecute where police investigations have removed blame from the driver.So are you saying that the police should decide wether to prosecute based on their investigations.Or are you saying that the CPS should prosecute against the findings of police investigations which remove blame from the driver ?. 
I don’t see any protests by the cycling lobby against his ideas.
Carryfast:
‘Final decision’ obviously means over rule in the case of the CPS deciding to prosecute where police investigations have removed blame from the driver…
No it doesn’t. You are not very intelligent and seem to be upset about something that isn’t happening.
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
‘Final decision’ obviously means over rule in the case of the CPS deciding to prosecute where police investigations have removed blame from the driver…
No it doesn’t. You are not very intelligent and seem to be upset about something that isn’t happening.
Assuming that ‘final decision’ doesn’t mean the over ruling of any police investigations,which remove blame and therefore a police decision not to prosecute.Exactly what does it mean and exactly what,in that case,would be the point of the idea.While you haven’t said wether you agree or disagree with it.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
‘Final decision’ obviously means over rule in the case of the CPS deciding to prosecute where police investigations have removed blame from the driver…
No it doesn’t. You are not very intelligent and seem to be upset about something that isn’t happening.
Assuming that ‘final decision’ doesn’t mean the over ruling of any police investigations,which remove blame and therefore a police decision not to prosecute.Exactly what does it mean and exactly what,in that case,would be the point of the idea.While you haven’t said wether you agree or disagree with it.
For the fourth time, there will be no over-ruling, assigning or removing blame has nothing to do with the police. You are incredibly thick but it doesn’t matter how many times you demonstrate that you don’t understand the proposals, you simply do not understand them. Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever, you keep trying to write in flowery language but it’s just making you look stupid. What on earth are you trying to say, what is the object of your first sentence?
Assuming that ‘final decision’ doesn’t mean the over ruling of any police investigations,which remove blame and therefore a police decision not to prosecute.
That’s not even a sentence. WTF is this bellend stuttering on about?
roaduser66:
The-Snowman:
Its also official guidance to always wear a helmet and use front and rear lights but you and that other ■■■ BWD seem to think it doesnt matter since its not illegal. Cant have it both ways pal
I have never said they don’t matter. So there is no duplicity since you are making up opinions I don’t hold. This is a lame debating tactic, argue with what I’ve said, not the voices in your head.
Debate about cyclists not wearing lights = No opinion from you except about how it only accounts for x% of deaths
Debate about cyclists running red lights = no opinion from you except to say it only accounts for x% of deaths
Debate about cyclists hammering between two lanes of traffic = You constantly bringing up that its legal yet ignoring the fact its not exactly safe
Debate about wearing of a cycle helmet = You saying the wearing of a helmet is not mandatory.
Not ONCE have you condemned any of the above practises except to almost justify it by saying hardly any deaths occur. So in a roundabout way what you ARE saying is its ok when cyclists do these things because they arnt dying when doing it. Yet it is these actions that they perform that is causing the animosity from some motorists
You stated that it was official guidleines to use the road if doing above 18mph. Ill take your word for it. Its official guidelines to wear a helmet (but not a legality) yet you choose on the other thread to say “wearing of a helmet is not mandatory,in fact it encourages dangerous undertakes”.
So you are picking and choosing which "official guidelines you want to follow and which ones you want to quote.
You cant have it both ways.
You’ve never said they dont mater but when ever anyone pushs either of you for your OWN opinions about anything ive mentioned above you side step it and quote statistics (the “10% of cyclists run a red light” being a particular belter) and never actually offer an opinion just to say that “reckless cycling isnt whats killing cyclists”. So reading between the lines,that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
Ive asked you COUNTLESS times for your own personal views on red light running, wrong way up a one way street, wrong way round roundabouts, riding across pedestrian crossings and countless other downright dangerous activities we all see every day. Yet you CONTINUALLY fail to answer and instead throw back an army of statistics about it “only” accounting for x% of incidents.
I also asked you before what reasons you have as to why cyclists shouldnt be required to have insurance as a legal requirment. No answer
Ive asked you why the cycling lobby constantly resist calls for bikes to be required to have something similar to a number plate. No answer
You come on here every so often and flap your gums about demanding more safety for cyclists and disregard anything anyone says that means to admit your logic is flawed.
Much like boredwitalkinsemse, whenever asked for your opinions on videos of dangerous cycling you ignore it hoping everyone will not notice and move on.
There are thousands upon thousands of decent cyclists on the road. But the ones with attitudes like YOURS are the ones causing the animosity,despite what you want to believe
None of that is true. If I was ignoring RLJing or risky or illegal behaviour by cyclists why would I link, three times, to the TFL Risky Cycling Study which shows that unlit riders feature in 2% of KSI RTCs? Don’t misrepresent what I’ve said. You keep doing it. I even said “Law breaking by riders is wrong. Law breaking by riders is not what’s killing them” and you replied to that post, so you must have seen it. So you’re lying. Again.
The-Snowman:
Not ONCE have you condemned any of the above practises
roaduser66:
Law- breaking by people on bikes is wrong.
Law-breaking by people on bikes is not what’s killing them.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=128604&p=2060024#p2060024
You’re a liar.
roaduser66:
The-Snowman:
Not ONCE have you condemned any of the above practises
roaduser66:
Law- breaking by people on bikes is wrong.
Law-breaking by people on bikes is not what’s killing them.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=128604&p=2060024#p2060024
You’re a liar.
Im sorry, what? Are you being serious!
You cant see that your own quote at the bottom is EXACTLY what I said in my above post?
You say its “wrong”? Thats hardly condemning it. And then you put “thats not whats killing them”. Which is a roundabout way of saying “its not important if they do it if its not killing them and I only want to focus on the minority of times a cyclist dies”. So even in (finally) admitting its wrong, you STILL have to shift everything back to the drivers blameworthy incidents.
you only want to focus on the actions of some motorists in which a fatality occurs. You cant pick and choose.
Speaking of picking and choosing, I notice you STILL havnt given your OWN personal feelings of all the incidents by cyclists I mentioned.
But thanks for posting the link to the thread because on it you will notice that rather than condemn red light running, you instead throw up statistics for how low the incidents are.
So instead of calling me a liar, how about you accept what I accuse you of is correct.
Ill take your apology any time your ready.
And ill take your thoughts on all the incidents of dangerous cycling I mentioned as well
roaduser66:
For the fourth time, there will be no over-ruling, assigning or removing blame has nothing to do with the police. You are incredibly thick but it doesn’t matter how many times you demonstrate that you don’t understand the proposals, you simply do not understand them. Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever, you keep trying to write in flowery language but it’s just making you look stupid. What on earth are you trying to say, what is the object of your first sentence?
In which case you’ll obviously have no problem in answering the question as to the definition of ‘final decision’.
While if you’re right then then the statement obviously wouldn’t say that ‘‘currently police forces in England and Wales ‘decide’ wether to pass a case on to the CPS after investigating a death’’.The reason being as I said the issue of what happens if/when the police investigation shows no case to answer.
IE there is no way that the CPS can ‘finally decide’ anything if its own investigative agency ( the police ) support the case for the defence.At least without either with holding the details/evidence of those ‘investigations’ or the police being turned as hostile witness against the prosecution by the defence.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
For the fourth time, there will be no over-ruling, assigning or removing blame has nothing to do with the police. You are incredibly thick but it doesn’t matter how many times you demonstrate that you don’t understand the proposals, you simply do not understand them. Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever, you keep trying to write in flowery language but it’s just making you look stupid. What on earth are you trying to say, what is the object of your first sentence?
In which case you’ll obviously have no problem in answering the question as to the definition of ‘final decision’.
While if you’re right then then the statement obviously wouldn’t say that ‘‘currently police forces in England and Wales ‘decide’ wether to pass a case on to the CPS after investigating a death’’.The reason being as I said the issue of what happens if/when the police investigation shows no case to answer.
IE there is no way that the CPS can ‘finally decide’ anything if its own investigative agency ( the police ) support the case for the defence.At least without either with holding the details/evidence of those ‘investigations’ or the police being turned as hostile witness against the prosecution by the defence.
I really don’t see why anyone would be concerned that the CPS would be given final say in prosecuting anyone, the only evidence they will have will be that gathered from the police. If the evidence gathered by the police shows the cyclist was at fault then the CPS will not be prosecuting the driver. What I like about the proposal is; Since the police know the CPS will be looking at all the evidence they have gathered, the police will feel that their entire investigation will be scrutinised and as such their investigation will be done correctly and thoroughly. And as both a driver and a cyclist I am happy with that.
Bluey Circles:
I really don’t see why anyone would be concerned that the CPS would be given final say in prosecuting anyone, the only evidence they will have will be that gathered from the police. If the evidence gathered by the police shows the cyclist was at fault then the CPS will not be prosecuting the driver. What I like about the proposal is; Since the police know the CPS will be looking at all the evidence they have gathered, the police will feel that their entire investigation will be scrutinised and as such their investigation will be done correctly and thoroughly. And as both a driver and a cyclist I am happy with that.
Or to put it another way in order to avoid either of the two ‘issues’ which I’ve described the cyclist lobby is hoping that the police investigators will feel under pressure to get the ‘right answer’ which supports prosecution.
On that note exactly what is it that makes you think that the CPS are technically more qualified/able to reach a conclusion in that regard than their own police investigative process.Bearing in mind that you’ve already contradicted yourself by saying that ‘if the evidence gathered by the police shows the cyclist was at fault then the CPS will not be prosecuting the driver’'.Which as I’ve said is where we are anyway because if they did then any defence worth its name would obviously tear the prosecution apart.
The obvious implication in the case of taking that process out of the hands of the police being an obvious conflict of interest.Which can only result in the with holding or suppressing of any inconvenient conclusions within the police investigations,that doesn’t fit an obvious politically driven script,for an increase in prosecution numbers.In which case we’ve been there before during the 1970’s.
Don’t know if it’s been posted before but here’s something else to get upset/irate/happy about.
london.gov.uk/media/assembl … -lorry-ban