Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote: ↑15 Sep 2021, 1:51pm The only case I remember was a distraught lady who had paid to park got a fixed penalty when the notice from the machine had fallen from the inside of her windscreen. Her appeal was dismissed before she had finished her first sentence on the grounds that displaying it properly was the driver's responsibility, end of.

That seems a bit harsh if she *had* displayed it properly but due to poor materials supplied by the machine the adhesive had failed and the ticket had fallen.

You can't stay by the car for the whole time you are parked in case the supplied ticket isn't up to the task.

Why are you so "hell bent" on fellow cyclist not having penalties reduced after he has admitted UNWITTINGLY twice driven in bus -lane while we have over 4000 drivers convicted on totting up procedure yet still allowed, because they have expensive brief to reduce sentence.

It doesn't matter whether you're a "fellow cyclist" or not - I'm not going to offer you ways out of paying a fine for two traffic violations you've openly admitted to - with the greatest of respect, that isn't what this forum is for. Bus lanes are clearly signposted and marked so "unwittingly" doesn't come into it.

My last word on the issue: I don't know why you keep going on about "totting up", since you don't even get points for driving in a bus lane. Just pay up, and move on with your life.

lescargo wrote: ↑16 Sep 2021, 1:46am

Why are you so "hell bent" on fellow cyclist not having penalties reduced after he has admitted UNWITTINGLY twice driven in bus -lane while we have over 4000 drivers convicted on totting up procedure yet still allowed, because they have expensive brief to reduce sentence.

Hmmm am I missing something or does the law of the land apply differently to cyclists? A driver who does something UNWITTINGLY is a driver who isn't concentrating.
People are perfectly entitled to employ an expensive lawyer to represent them - in England justice is open to all, like the Ritz Hotel.

https://road.cc/content/news/magistrate ... k1mrC0oz9w

More details needed for this one, very strange, any guesses?

Driver escapes ban as it was acceptable to speed to avoid a collision with a cyclist, although somehow the driver could only see a helmet.

I think one problem is that so much stuff which is not directly relevant to this case is included it's hard to see the wood for the trees. In particular, two different aspects of licence endorsements are being treated as one.

First, if somebody is convicted of certain offences related to driving, then the conviction is recorded on the defendant's driving licence in addition to any penalty ie licence endorsed, unless the court finds special reasons for not doing so. IME (which is not recent) typically this might involve an offence committed by the driver of an emergency vehicle responding to an emergency.

Then, a series of endorsements within a set period normally results in a "totting up" disqualification. Obviously, if a conviction does not result in endorsement, it can't be counted towards totting up. Originally, all endorsements carried the same weight and it was "three strikes and you're out." More recently, different offences have attracted a different number of points and twelve points = disqualification, unless the court finds special reasons for not disqualifying eg the infamous exceptional hardship.

I've not dug out the links to the different bits of legislation through idleness. There are more results from learned friends offering their services than there is the info needed. If there's a surviving decent local rag in this part of Buckinghamshire, there may be a more coherent report of the court proceedings.

(I have mentioned before that sentencing decisions are something I try not to fret about so my knowledge of the rules isn't great without looking them up.)
===============================================================

I think this is the local media report rehashed by road.cc

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/1 ... sts-death/

I don't think it says anything different to the road.cc report, but it's not jumbled up with other stuff
==================================================================

For anybody want to research what I've tried to cover above, a starting point is the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act, 1988. Part II covers endorsement and disqualification.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/contents

Postboxer wrote: ↑14 Oct 2021, 10:06pm https://road.cc/content/news/magistrate ... k1mrC0oz9w

More details needed for this one, very strange, any guesses?

I agree: other than the driver admitting to exceeding a 30 limit, the logic for exceeding that limit escapes me...

Maybe the cyclist was close behind them, drafting, so they could only see their helmet in the rear view mirror, then realised they were speeding, but that would only excuse not slamming the brakes on, not the speeding to begin with, or they could see a helmet approaching them in the rear view mirror?

Sorry. I missed the point of your query. "Speeding out of danger" is not a new excuse

Never heard of anyone having to speed out of danger to a cyclist of which they could only see their helmet though.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑15 Oct 2021, 1:10pm Sorry. I missed the point of your query. "Speeding out of danger" is not a new excuse

I suppose you could "speed out of danger" to get back onto the correct side of the road if you had mucked up an overtake and then seen oncoming traffic. That requires a big mistake in the first place though. Starting to overtake when you should have waited.

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑16 Sep 2021, 8:50am

thirdcrank wrote: ↑15 Sep 2021, 1:51pm The only case I remember was a distraught lady who had paid to park got a fixed penalty when the notice from the machine had fallen from the inside of her windscreen. Her appeal was dismissed before she had finished her first sentence on the grounds that displaying it properly was the driver's responsibility, end of.

That seems a bit harsh if she *had* displayed it properly but due to poor materials supplied by the machine the adhesive had failed and the ticket had fallen.

You can't stay by the car for the whole time you are parked in case the supplied ticket isn't up to the task.

My wife successfully appealed a penalty (in Milton Keynes) when one of those "place on dashboard" tickets fell off when the door was closed.