carry fast : i was assuming you knew who he was before he became an MP ?
and um , the police investigate the accident and if they think there is evidence they pass the case to CPS who consider if the evidence is sufficient and whether its in the public interest to prosecute .
the BBC article shows police are not passing cases to CPS . police are deciding that prosecution is not in public interest . this is not their role .
the ex DPP wants the CPS to consider all cases involving fatality of cyclist . quite rightly .
its not a question about MPs and opposition and votes as no law change is required …
its a question of influence , and this socialist MP has plenty where it matters
boredwivdrivin:
carry fast : i was assuming you knew who he was before he became an MP ?
and um , the police investigate the accident and if they think there is evidence they pass the case to CPS who consider if the evidence is sufficient and whether its in the public interest to prosecute .
the BBC article shows police are not passing cases to CPS . police are deciding that prosecution is not in public interest . this is not their role .
the ex DPP wants the CPS to consider all cases involving fatality of cyclist . quite rightly .
its not a question about MPs and opposition and votes as no law change is required …
its a question of influence , and this socialist MP has plenty where it matters
Firstly the police decide ‘if it’s in the public interest’ to prosecute in all cases not just road traffic.While it’s clear that this has nothing to do with the question of wether to prosecute.It’s all about trying to use the prosecution service ( and an unelected Party ) as a back door method,to create a law change which puts the presumption of guilt on drivers.Solely based on cyclist ‘vulnerability’.
On that note it’s obvious that the police would foreseeably then be caught in the middle of an unarguable plan to prosecute who they know are innocent drivers.Bearing in mind that police ‘expert accident investigators’ could foreseeably be forced to act as Queens evidence on the basis of cyclist ‘vulnerability’ when their own investigations have concluded cyclist wrongdoing being the cause of the collision.That’s the public interest angle.
While assuming a law change at parliamentary level,which puts the emphasis on cyclist vulnerability not rules of the road,that would obviously be the time for national strike action by drivers ‘if’ they’ve got any sense.Which then leaves that issue of conflict of interest between the large transport union/s and political affiliation.Which is why we’ve got drivers earning relatively zb all v their train driver counterparts partly because of a political transport policy which is biased in favour of rail.
boredwivdrivin:
Department of Transport figures show 113 cyclists were killed in the UK last year.
Last year a Freedom of Information request by BBC’s Newsbeat found that between 2007 and 2014 there were 276 recorded incidents where a cyclist was killed in an accident involving a motor vehicle.
Of these, 148 - 54% - resulted in the driver of the vehicle being charged with an offence. Of those found guilty, fewer than half went to prison.
I just love ■■■■ journalism and the way that stats are misused.
148 drivers charged following 276 deaths and under 50% (might be just under at 49% or well under at 10%) of those found guilty went to prison, but we won’t specify the figures when it doesn’t fit what the journalist/ editor is trying to push.
Carryfast:
Firstly the police decide ‘if it’s in the public interest’ to prosecute in all cases not just road traffic.While it’s clear that this has nothing to do with the question of whether to prosecute.It’s all about trying to use the prosecution service ( and an unelected Party ) as a back door method,to create a law change which puts the presumption of guilt on drivers.Solely based on cyclist ‘vulnerability’.
im thinking this is plain wrong : the police dont decide public interest , they ask the CPS .
and there is no mention of changing law by anyone , just referring all fatalities to CPS to decide if prosecution is viable .
im pleased tho that you have such faith in the Establishment ; that a former civil service mandarin will not seek to influence his former empire , especially when present incumbent is held in such low esteem , just because his politically affiliated organisation was dismissed by electorate .
with my heart cockles duly warmed i shall use my new laptop to investigate the police/CPS public interest thing , when i find out where to look
Vid:
I just love [zb] journalism and the way that stats are misused.
148 drivers charged following 276 deaths and under 50% (might be just under at 49% or well under at 10%) of those found guilty went to prison, but we won’t specify the figures when it doesn’t fit what the journalist/ editor is trying to push.
i agree .
wot an arse about face way to present “facts” from the so called premier news organisation in the country !
i expect it was written by some middle class intern doing a just totally important degree in media studies and photography with transgender empowerment .
boredwivdrivin:
carry fast : i was assuming you knew who he was before he became an MP ?
and um , the police investigate the accident and if they think there is evidence they pass the case to CPS who consider if the evidence is sufficient and whether its in the public interest to prosecute .
the BBC article shows police are not passing cases to CPS . police are deciding that prosecution is not in public interest . this is not their role .
the ex DPP wants the CPS to consider all cases involving fatality of cyclist . quite rightly .
its not a question about MPs and opposition and votes as no law change is required …
its a question of influence , and this socialist MP has plenty where it matters
Considering how this government is obsessed with saving money, it won’t see the benefit in refering the case of a cyclist who dies as he jumped a red light whilst wearing dark clothing and not displaying lights. From a financial point of view, it’s never going to happen. And IMO, it shouldn’t.
Ps sorry for poor spelling, my phone is misbehaving.
Carryfast:
Firstly the police decide ‘if it’s in the public interest’ to prosecute in all cases not just road traffic.While it’s clear that this has nothing to do with the question of whether to prosecute.It’s all about trying to use the prosecution service ( and an unelected Party ) as a back door method,to create a law change which puts the presumption of guilt on drivers.Solely based on cyclist ‘vulnerability’.
im thinking this is plain wrong : the police dont decide public interest , they ask the CPS .
and there is no mention of changing law by anyone , just referring all fatalities to CPS to decide if prosecution is viable .
im pleased tho that you have such faith in the Establishment ; that a former civil service mandarin will not seek to influence his former empire , especially when present incumbent is held in such low esteem , just because his politically affiliated organisation was dismissed by electorate .
with my heart cockles duly warmed i shall use my new laptop to investigate the police/CPS public interest thing , when i find out where to look
Firstly I don’t have absolute ‘faith’ in any of them but it’s obvious that the cycling lobby’s intentions and the general agenda is all about ‘liability and presumption change’.
While,as I said,the police are generally the first line in the decision wether to prosecute in all types of cases.So why the calls for a specific change in that regard in the case of cyclist v motor vehicle collisions.On that note it seems obvious that the police would see a public interest issue in the case of their own investigations supporting the case for the defence and contradicting a position of them acting on the side of Queens evidence.
blue estate:
What about the cyclist I passed on a dark country lane at 5:30 am no lights and dark clothing [emoji49] if I knocked him off and killed him I would be taken to court due to his muppettry
nope . not what he is saying .
it would be referred to CPS to decide whether to prosecute you …
not PC Plonker .
anyways if visibility was your only defence then i would hope you would be prosecuted , because i doubt a drunk staggering around , or a small child running into road would wear hi viz cothing or lights .
it is your responsibility to see them and not kill them isnt it ■■
What part of “NO LIGHTS !” Did you not understand
Rule 60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp
For the benefit of those who can’t read
It was a windy dark country lane tree lined so not much moon light , the rider was in dark clothing and only due to sheer luck my CAR not Truck headlights caught the reflector on the seat base
blue estate:
What about the cyclist I passed on a dark country lane at 5:30 am no lights and dark clothing [emoji49] if I knocked him off and killed him I would be taken to court due to his muppettry
nope . not what he is saying .
it would be referred to CPS to decide whether to prosecute you …
not PC Plonker .
anyways if visibility was your only defence then i would hope you would be prosecuted , because i doubt a drunk staggering around , or a small child running into road would wear hi viz cothing or lights .
it is your responsibility to see them and not kill them isnt it ■■
What part of “NO LIGHTS !” Did you not understand
Rule 60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp
I don’t think anyone is condoning pedaling aboot on the roads with no lights dressed like a ninja, and I don’t think many people would have much sympathy if he was knocked off. But equally a finger must be pointed at the driver, if you don’t see something as large as a bicyle on the road, then you shouldn’t be driving.
Bluey Circles:
I don’t think anyone is condoning pedaling aboot on the roads with no lights dressed like a ninja, and I don’t think many people would have much sympathy if he was knocked off. But equally a finger must be pointed at the driver, if you don’t see something as large as a bicyle on the road, then you shouldn’t be driving.
It’s an arguable point but taken to it’s logical conclusion you’re generally going to need to compromise on using dipped headlights in favour of using main beam.Even often even against approaching traffic.Which is a compromise which I’d long since decided is essential to avoid unlit hazards on unlit roads.
im still waiting to find out how many dead cyclists were killed at night ■■?
and how many were not using lights ■■
and what that has got to do with police referring all deaths of cyclists to CPS ■■?
Probably a lot less than those killed while trying to undertake left turning trucks.
What that has to do with referring all deaths of cyclists to the CPS,is firstly the question why would cyclist deaths,possibly the result of criminal driving and possibly not,need to be dealt with any differently to any other type of criminal investigation and prosecution ?.In which the police have the first choice of stopping a prosecution based on the evidence and the presumption of innocence,not the CPS or the courts for the reasons of public interest which I’ve described.Secondly the answer seems obvious in that the cyclist lobby want the law to apply a different presumption of guilt based on cyclist vulnerability,not the evidence,in this case being rules of the road.
BTW Carryfast . i wasnt referring to you as a troll .
I was talking to that bunch of idiot doormats above who are wittering on about lights .
They are unable to support their case with any evidence , incapable of independant or original thought , or argue their way out of a paper bag .
That little circle of bumboys are only lorry drivers because they are too thick to shovel ■■■■■ in a skip for a living !
To you carryfast i would say that CPS guidelines already mean certain offences are ALWAYS referred to them for a decision on prosecution .
Such as domestic violence , race hate and child abuse
And if a lack of lights were an issue in a cyclist fatality then the police should submit their evidence to CPS , who would probably decide that there is no realistic chance of conviction , or its not in public interest .
But it cant be left to PC Plod who has proven himself incapable of supplying justice to halfish of dead cyclists
boredwivdrivin:
They are unable to support their case with any evidence , incapable of independant or original thought , or argue their way out of a paper bag .
Coming from you I think that’s the funniest thing ive ever heard in my life!!
Any time you get asked a direct question regarding anything you post you respond with either insults or you by pass it by twittering on about something else.
Why should cyclists be given special treatment in the event of a collision? Given that you yourself claimed to regularly ride on the dual carriageway holding onto the back of a lorry and actually seemed quite proud of it? Since you deem this dangerous and illegal practice to be acceptable, just what are your reasons for supporting the calls for more to be done to protect cyclists whilst at the same time resisting calls for them to be regulated like any other road user?
