BillyHunt:
Don’t know if it’s been posted before but here’s something else to get upset/irate/happy about.
How will the Dutch ‘cycle paths’ ‘seperate’ cyclists from traffic when cyclists refuse to use the ones we’ve already got preferring to use the road because the road is considered safer.
While the plans seem to be all about banning trucks during supposed cycle use times but no reciprocal banning of cyclists during truck use times. 
BillyHunt:
Don’t know if it’s been posted before but here’s something else to get upset/irate/happy about.
I couldn’t be 4rsed to read the article, if it was up to me I would tell all lorries to tip on the outskirts of the M25 and the london cyclists can shuttle it all in and out on rickshaws, we will see how they get on with that.
Anyways, I was puzzled by the picture, why is “london.gov.uk” using a picture of a cyclist and truck in Slovakia ? probably sums up the quality of the article.
Bluey Circles:
I was puzzled by the picture, why is “london.gov.uk” using a picture of a cyclist and truck in Slovakia ? probably sums up the quality of the article.
Probably because a ‘big nasty’ drawbar tipper outfit looks even more menacing for the anti truck propaganda than an 8 wheeler. 
As for the M25 no that doesn’t mean anything regards the London Assembly’s boundary and remit which luckily,so far,stops well short of that. 
““The majority of decisions to charge are made by police forces, which have the authority to charge suspects with less serious offences, such as common assault or criminal damage with a low value. The CPS is responsible for taking all other charging decisions – including for serious offences such as murder and ■■■■ – and the police cannot charge suspects with these offences without authorisation from a Crown Prosecutor.””
:: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service
it is a question of whether establishment view cyclists deaths as “low value” and leave to PC Plod , or Serious and leave to CPS .
Got nothing to do with conflicts of defence witnesses
OR
Being innocent : that is for magistrate/jury to decide .
its about dead cyclists being given some access to justice , by at the very least knowing that someone credible has examined the evidence of case (provided by police) and taken a considered view as to whether a prosecution can be attained
this website lists ALL cycling deaths .
it updates case info as it becomes available .
if you google the names you get local paper articles .
its clear from reading these that ::
Most cyclists are killed outside of london .
Most deaths IN london are NOT left turning vehicles
Most deaths have nothing to do with lights !
most deaths see no justice for victim
The-Snowman:
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 motoristsYou 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 answerYou 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
what the hell are you bladdering on about you ■■■
am i meant to struggle through these arse droppings you post and identify a question ■■
or face weeks of trolling from you that no one answers your questions .
if you want to discuss number plates on bikes , or helmets ,or red lights ,or road tax start a thread on it with some clearly defined points to debate !!
none of those things have anything to do with this thread , safety or sanity
Sidevalve:
And for balance; from what I’ve seen, every HGV driver involved in a fatal accident with a cyclist is arrested before the investigation even starts.It’s not a one-way street mate; but even if it was, there’d probably be a cyclist riding the wrong way up it.
normally , they are arrested , breath tested , and released without charge .
see cases here ::https://beyondthekerbcasebook.wordpress.com
boredwivdrivin:
““The majority of decisions to charge are made by police forces, which have the authority to charge suspects with less serious offences, such as common assault or criminal damage with a low value. The CPS is responsible for taking all other charging decisions – including for serious offences such as murder and ■■■■ – and the police cannot charge suspects with these offences without authorisation from a Crown Prosecutor.””:: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service
it is a question of whether establishment view cyclists deaths as “low value” and leave to PC Plod , or Serious and leave to CPS .
Got nothing to do with conflicts of defence witnesses
OR
Being innocent : that is for magistrate/jury to decide .
its about dead cyclists being given some access to justice , by at the very least knowing that someone credible has examined the evidence of case (provided by police) and taken a considered view as to whether a prosecution can be attained
Firstly are you saying that cyclist deaths are in some way different than any other road traffic casualties including those resulting from motor vehicle v motor vehicle collisions ?.If so why.
There’s no argument that that the CPS have the ‘final decision’ in the case of deciding ‘not’ to prosecute.But what they can’t possibly do is to make a decision ‘to’ prosecute if/when the police investigations don’t support prosecution and support the case for the defence.At which point the prosecution case inevitably collapses on grounds of public interest and is not a matter for any ‘jury’.
In which case define ‘justice’ and ‘someone credible’ being that the CPS can’t possibly contradict,or be more ‘credible’,than the police investigations which the prosecution case is ultimately based on.On that note suggest you check out the circumstances of the Guildford 4.IE a police force under pressure to ‘get justice’ for the victims supported by the DPP/CPS.
Which of course was ultimately over turned,not by the CPS,nor by the jury,but by subsequent police investigations.Into the actions of both the DPP/CPS and the original police investigations working together to get 'the right ( wrong ) answer,which sent innocent people to prison.Owing to the withholding of inconvenient evidence from the defence,by a police force and CPS acting together on exactly the basis which you describe. 
boredwivdrivin:
what the hell are you bladdering on about you ■■■
A - I wasn’t talking to you
B - If you can’t understand what I’ve written, that’s your problem. It’s basic English and easily readable.
C - If your going to insult someone, try to get it right. you meant blabbering since bladdering is no where near close to what you were trying to say.
Oh dear. Not off to a good start here are you!
boredwivdrivin:
am i meant to struggle through these arse droppings you post and identify a question ■■
No
Have a look back at the original post dumbass. Does it LOOK like I was even talking to you? Do you see your name? ■■■
And even if it was aimed at you, why bother changing the habit of a lifetime now and answering anything? You’ve never answered any other direct question ive asked in the past so why start now? (Unless the answer suits you of course. You seem to understand plenty when the answer suits you)
There is a certain degree of irony here though, that a couple of days ago you told me I misquoted yet here we have you making a prize moron of yourself by getting all red in the face about a post NOT EVEN FOR YOU!!!
boredwivdrivin:
or face weeks of trolling from you that no one answers your questions .
Everyone else answers any questions I ask. Your the only one who seems to struggle with a simple answer to a simple question. Your the only one who thinks that peppering a reply with insults rather then answers for a couple of days till you can say “that was ages ago, we’ve moved on” is a decent strategy. Your obviously too dumb to realise that all you do is reinforce the forum-wide held belief that you are nothing more than a blowhard with arguments and beliefs built on sand. It doesnt bother me when you don’t answer since all I need you to do is avoid answering to prove my point.
boredwivdrivin:
if you want to discuss number plates on bikes , or helmets ,or red lights ,or road tax start a thread on it with some clearly defined points to debate !!
Even if I DID start a thread about it, I think everyone knows you wouldn’t show your face in it. You never do when ever it is a thread where you would get asked stuff you don’t like.
And since we are on a thread where you both are giving it big licks about more protection for cyclists then it is entirely relevant to get your views on making cyclists accountable for their actions by being identified or just WHY you both seem to skirt round the issue of dangerous cyclist manouveres such as red light jumping by giving it “it only accounts for x% of deaths”. You cant have it both ways of demanding more protection yet having no answer when asked about making cyclists more accountable or even proving they know any road laws or rules
boredwivdrivin:
none of those things have anything to do with this thread , safety or sanity
Well since roadmuppet66 was quoting the “official guidelines” about not using cycle lanes above 18mph yet ignoring my points about it being official guidelines to use a helmet and saying its not mandatory and basically proving what everyone knows that you pro-cyclists like to pick and choose which laws and guidelines you want to abide by and quote then I am perfectly entitled to ask for the views on ANYTHING I WANT regard cyclists on the road from someone with such one sided arguments and hypocritical views. You cant come on here demanding more protection for cyclists and more laws and acting like a coupe of arrogant pricks and then decide what you want to respond to and what not,depending on if you like what the answer is or not. If you were so confident you were right, you’d have some answers for ANYTHING asked of you. But you dont. All you have is a load of insults that you think no-ones can see is just basically dodging the question for a few days till you can say “that was ages ago”. Its a pretty ■■■■ poor strategy TBH but as I said, it proves the same as the answer would anyway
So here we have yet another post by borinmoron trying to be the big shot, huffing and puffing and being a blowhard but actually having nothing to say of ANY relevance to anything I posted. Even though it wasnt even for him, he’s STILL managed to make a prize ■■■ of himself. Now THAT takes some doing and I think the “moron of the site” award is safely his for another year yet!
bladdering :: term used to describe uncontrolled , non directional and/or unintended release of unpleasant bodily fluids or gas . often used to describe post pub / taxi driver wordy but brainless ranting .
ex : you were giving that kebab man a right ’ bladdering ’ last night Tarquin .
carryfast , you are looking for problems that dont exist , because all but minor crimes ( and cycling deaths) have to be prosecuted by CPS already . the police are not trusted to do it .
guildford four etc have nothing to do with it as they were prosecuted by old system , CPS in its present form had not even been invented then . and if i remember correctly , Guildford 4 were fitted up by the police fabricating evidence . even more reason to have an oversight on their decisions .
boredwivdrivin:
bladdering :: term used to describe uncontrolled , non directional and/or unintended release of unpleasant bodily fluids or gas . often used to describe post pub / taxi driver wordy but brainless ranting .ex : you were giving that kebab man a right ’ bladdering ’ last night Tarquin .
So by coming back with this, what your basically saying is everything else I put is true?
Silence speaks a thousand words
boredwivdrivin:
carryfast , you are looking for problems that dont exist , because all but minor crimes ( and cycling deaths) have to be prosecuted by CPS already . the police are not trusted to do it .guildford four etc have nothing to do with it as they were prosecuted by old system , CPS in its present form had not even been invented then . and if i remember correctly , Guildford 4 were fitted up by the police fabricating evidence . even more reason to have an oversight on their decisions .
As I said the CPS’s role is only to over rule the police in the case of deciding ‘not’ to prosecute.What it can’t/shouldn’t do is vice versa assuming that the police investigations themselves don’t warrant prosecution because those investigations support the defence.
As for the Guildford 4 they were actually ‘fitted up’ on the basis of the police trying to make the evidence fit the case for prosecution against the defence by way of omission and/or change.Bearing in mind that realistically any evidence turned up by the police investigations that supports the defence means the case will ( rightly ) collapse and not be put to the jury for that reason.
IE what you’re asking for is exactly what happened in the case of the prosecution of the Guildford 4.Either in the form of ‘review’,or omission,or change of any police evidence which supports the case for the defence.
Carryfast:
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.
The police never prosecute anyone, it is not their job, they gather evidence and when they feel that evidence points to a crime being committed they pass it to the CPS for their consideration, it is the CPS that do the prosecution.
So the only change would be, is, the CPS will get to look at all of the evidence every time a cyclist dies, I’m sure the police will still without favour or fear add there opinion to that evidence. I really don’t see it changes that much other than the police will feel more obliged to be thorough, and that can only be a good thing for everyone.
Bluey Circles:
The police never prosecute anyone, it is not their job, they gather evidence and when they feel that evidence points to a crime being committed they pass it to the CPS for their consideration, it is the CPS that do the prosecution.So the only change would be, is, the CPS will get to look at all of the evidence every time a cyclist dies, I’m sure the police will still without favour or fear add there opinion to that evidence. I really don’t see it changes that much other than the police will feel more obliged to be thorough, and that can only be a good thing for everyone.
But it ‘is’ their job to inform both the defence and the CPS and the Judge in any subsequent trial ‘if’ those investigations in any way support the case for the defence.In which case the prosecution case collapses for obvious reasons.So exactly how does your idea work assuming the police investigations don’t support the case for prosecution.On that note define what you mean by ‘obliged’ and ‘thourough’ bearing in mind that their investigations can only either support the case for prosecution or not.
Carryfast , the CPS deal with those issues all day long .
If cps think its not in public interest , or no realistic chance of prosecution they will tell police not to bring charges .
All that needs to be done is upgrade cyclists deaths from low level event where police can bring charges , to higher level where police cant decide whether to bring charges or not
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
The police never prosecute anyone, it is not their job, they gather evidence and when they feel that evidence points to a crime being committed they pass it to the CPS for their consideration, it is the CPS that do the prosecution.So the only change would be, is, the CPS will get to look at all of the evidence every time a cyclist dies, I’m sure the police will still without favour or fear add there opinion to that evidence. I really don’t see it changes that much other than the police will feel more obliged to be thorough, and that can only be a good thing for everyone.
But it ‘is’ their job to inform both the defence and the CPS and the Judge in any subsequent trial ‘if’ those investigations in any way support the case for the defence.In which case the prosecution case collapses for obvious reasons.So exactly how does your idea work assuming the police investigations don’t support the case for prosecution.On that note define what you mean by ‘obliged’ and ‘thourough’ bearing in mind that their investigations can only either support the case for prosecution or not.
By thorough I mean they will need to leave no stone unturned. I guess the CPS are wanting a better understanding into serious accident involving cyclists, so few convictions for so many accidents.
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
The police never prosecute anyone, it is not their job, they gather evidence and when they feel that evidence points to a crime being committed they pass it to the CPS for their consideration, it is the CPS that do the prosecution.So the only change would be, is, the CPS will get to look at all of the evidence every time a cyclist dies, I’m sure the police will still without favour or fear add there opinion to that evidence. I really don’t see it changes that much other than the police will feel more obliged to be thorough, and that can only be a good thing for everyone.
But it ‘is’ their job to inform both the defence and the CPS and the Judge in any subsequent trial ‘if’ those investigations in any way support the case for the defence.In which case the prosecution case collapses for obvious reasons.So exactly how does your idea work assuming the police investigations don’t support the case for prosecution.On that note define what you mean by ‘obliged’ and ‘thourough’ bearing in mind that their investigations can only either support the case for prosecution or not.
By thorough I mean they will need to leave no stone unturned. I guess the CPS are wanting a better understanding into serious accident involving cyclists, so few convictions for so many accidents.
Assuming that the police investigations have reached the conclusion of no case to answer against the driver there is no other opposing stone that can be turned.IE it’s one or the other and in the case of any evidence which supports the defence that genie can’t be put back in the bottle.It has to be disclosed which effectively ( rightly ) destroys any case for the prosecution.Which of course has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact is justice isn’t a numbers game and any attempt to make it one results in miscarriages of justice like the Guildford 4.In which case the object of police investigations is to establish a case which supports prosecution or not.The object isn’t,nor should it ever be,about conviction rates.
Well I think it’s checkmate! 
Even if some are only playing draughts!
Plus don’t forget to tune in to next weeks CPS Lottery, as we will be picking 10 lucky cases to be investigated and prosecuted, regardless of the police investigation’s recommendations!
boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast , the CPS deal with those issues all day long .
If cps think its not in public interest , or no realistic chance of prosecution they will tell police not to bring charges .All that needs to be done is upgrade cyclists deaths from low level event where police can bring charges , to higher level where police cant decide whether to bring charges or not
You still haven’t explained what changes wether it’s the police saying don’t bother or the CPS,in the situation where police investigations support the defence. 
As I said the CPS can’t put that genie back in the bottle so how does your idea make the slightest difference.‘Unless’ that is you are calling on the CPS to suppress any evidence within those investigations that supports the defence.